Ann: Update on Corporate Review and Management Changes, page-352

I stand to be corrected, but I dont believe the board members currently on day rates were ever meant to be a long term solution. I think they were hired as consultants to achieve a specific task, and now that the task is drawing to a close their positions/ remuneration will be reviewed as a matter of course.

I'd personally be happy for them to stay on as less active permanent members (on salary) because they each bring experience, credibility and valuable skill sets to the table.

BGS are certainly assembling what seems to be a very professional management unit. Something I don't believe the old board were ever going to do, despite many requests and promises on their part.

Soon we are going to require funds for the DFS and an operations buffer. Looks like the tax issues identified seem to be a worse case scenario, won't be immediately payable, and wouldn't be surprised to see this bill reduced. The gold revenue remains up in the air, although still likely to come through at some stage. I don't get the sense that contractual/ permitting issues are terminal, but they will need to be worked through as a priority now. We should remember it is in all parties best interest to get a result here.

So without the gold funds likely materialising in next 3-6 months, we will need to secure funding for the pre construction phase, and to allow a buffer. What form will this take? If an equity stake/ buy in / CR is arranged then BGS need to be mindful of dilution at these prices (25-45c) so with this in mind, I wouldn't be looking to raise more than about 5-10m unless on very good terms. As others have posted, recent efforts to raise funds in the sector have been generally positive and on fair terms. However we do need to be mindful that raising too much at a MC <100m will be highly dilutive, and based on this, I believe it is imperative that management look to promote BGS aggressively over the next 6 months.

I know I will be at odds with several of the stalwarts here, but based on the above, I believe we should engage advisors that understand the position and merits of downstream parties, and who can also help to raise awareness in the Asian markets. Perhaps this is not MLs crew but another party, I don't know. Not sure how anyone can doubt the effectiveness of their promotion of AVZ, especially in Asia, raising awareness and market confidence in the resource, thereby minimising dilution and ensuring they will not be taken out for a song.

My biggest concern is not being able to raise funds (near term and construction funds) at reasonable impact to shareholders. Everyone, including myself, seems accustomed to accepting the SP not reflecting the asset or peers (Hence 30c opening prediction) If this continues we are going to get shafted in a KDR type scenario (they are OK as probably fairly valued), but doesn't have to be this way.

Yes ML left in dubious circumstances, and MM took a fair stack of options for setting up MOUs, but you can't knock the caliber of parties at the table. Also, just because we have not "formalised" (whatever that exactly means?) these MOUs as yet, doesn't mean they won't bear fruit post PFS, and probably more importantly, post suspension. They may just be holding off to let dust settle.

We need market awareness, and I believe NOT letting Airguide have a crack at moving the needle would be cutting off our noses to spite our face. (Possibly low risk performance based options deal?)
Just IMO (Franky please count to ten before responding :confused:)