Ann: Update on Remus Proposal and Woodside Sale, page-170

Reluctantly, Corn, I agree - and those who have read my rubbish over the years will realise just how reluctantly I call on management to go.

This thread has been an interesting discussion and I have read it with interest. On balance, I agree with those posters who assert that mismanagement - at least in part - has led us to the precipice. Nobody could have envisaged the Covid disaster, but Silent Partner persuasively points out that FAR management viewed the whole project through rose-colored glasses:

- PE was a 'free swing' with no adverse consequences, if you recall: It turned out to be a yorker and we lost middle stump.

- FAR elected to go the slog sweep on 13.7 per cent, rather than sell down to a more manageable level (as I believe our dearly departed mate Whisky advocated). That was fine in theory but had disastrous consequences once we were stuck with an asset no one in Covid World wanted to buy. Goodbye off stump.

- FAR raised the bare minimum capital/debt to fund a best-case development - a full toss on leg stump, as it were. Unfortunately, Woodside bowled a bouncer that sconed us.

After reflecting on your posts, I agree each of these decisions pre-supposed nothing would go wrong. A sell-down here, a hedge there and a capital buffer in the shed and we would be in a different place. Hindsight, yes, but also risk management 101.

I agree, Corn, Mr Market will not trust the current mob to get the job done. Just as coaches must go when their teams fail, management must acknowledge they have burnt hundreds of millions of dollars in value - that 'little gold mine' - and resign. Won't happen, of course.

OOO