Thanks for the diatribe Dossa, and as usual not actually...

Thanks for the diatribe Dossa, and as usual not actually answering a question. firstly I do still have a material interest in the company, just not the way you expect. As I have already laid it out in a post I wont bother repeating myself. It just shows you don't bother reading everything before going off.

BTW for everyone, this is taken from "The Allans book on Takeovers in Australia" and in particular the part about the 20% rule and those acting in concert.....

"The 20% rule and key concepts
>> A person cannot acquire a ‘relevant interest’ in
voting securities of an entity that is subject to the
takeovers rules if that would result in any person’s
‘voting power’ exceeding 20%, except via a specified
exception (such as a takeover bid or scheme of
arrangement).
>> The concept of ‘relevant interest’ is extremely broad,
covering almost all situations where a person has
direct or indirect control over the voting or disposal
of a security.
>> A person’s ‘voting power’ in an entity is the aggregate
of that person’s ‘relevant interests’ in voting
securities and the ‘relevant interests’ of that person’s
associates, expressed as a percentage of all issued
voting securities.
>> The concept of ‘association’ seeks to ascertain all
persons who should be considered as belonging to a
single securityholding bloc in relation to an entity. It
covers all entities within the same corporate group,
and persons who are deemed to be working together
for the purpose of influencing the composition
of the relevant entity’s board of directors or its
management, or working together in relation to the
relevant entity’s affairs."

Just re-read that last section again and can some-one tell me how the 3 amegos are NOT doing this???
"and persons who are deemed to be working together for the purpose of influencing the composition of the relevant entity’s board of directors or its management, or working together in relation to the relevant entity’s affairs."

Working together for the purpose of influencing the composition of the relevant entity's board.
Yes they have already done that!!

working together in relation to the relevant entity’s affairs. Yes they have already done that!! or are currently doing that!!

This is why the board should be acting!! They can do a cap raise amongst their own members without fear of the 3 amegos vetoing any such motion or they would be giving absolute proof of breaking the 20% rule by voting in a block, as if they have not broken that rule enough already!!

Hence the board by NOT doing anything to get the company out of it's current mess, ie no capital to finish the project, should be acting, not sitting around to see if the 3 amegos can raise the funds, which as Syd has already stated looks much more likely with the Chinese looking for anything to spend new loans on.