Snap...really....don't slip off your chair with excitement. You...

Snap...really....don't slip off your chair with excitement.

You have just made a significant point whether you realise or not, that contributes to my argument about having two capital markets/brokers on the board when we are forced to issue to someone that we know are going to screw the sp for 3 months.

If the option isn't open to TNG it's because they can't get the job done and can't get the brokers engaged. If you employ someone to do a job and they can't do that job, do you keep them employed?

Regarding asking the board, I'd love to get my hands on the prior months board papers from TNG to determine if there were any sort of sensitivity analysis completed on various equity raising options. My bet is none. Typical of an insular board, it was always going to be Trafalgar and probably around next March it will be Trafalgar again.

The most critical flaw in your thinking is that you truly believe that in all equity issues, whether through placements, share purchase plans or IPOs, the equity participants in said raises are sellers. I can guarantee you that it is quite the opposite and the way it happens at TNG is the exception and the outlier.

Please go and find me an equity raise in the mining industry during 2016 where the institutional participant sold down all their shares within a few months. Then to shut me up forever find me a company where that has happened twice in two years.

If we did get a broker to complete the raise and then their clients sold every single share as you suggest, said broker would never be used for a capital raise ever again by any company in Australia, ever. That scenario would never happen my friend.