Actually I don't want to get embroiled in what is now ancient...

Actually I don't want to get embroiled in what is now ancient history regarding RED, it opens up too many wounds for me due to my losses incurred since it hit around $2.20 when I was a fool to buy shares in the company. But I will reply to some of the comments made by Holdonman, and JakeDog.

Personally I am surprised that you Holdonman, who seems to be so critical of the current MD (and I don't disagree with you on that!), that you seem to be defending past management! That seems quite ironic, since the facts are very clear to see:
1. There were so many past stuff ups under the past MD and his team, and to me it appears to have been a very smooth transition to stuff ups under the current management team.
And no I don't agree with many of your comments re the mill and the commissioning. You refer to risk management re the replacement of the second hand mill. Well it would have been better risk management not to have bought the original mill in the first place - perhaps getting sound technical advice would have been a far better risk management option.
Re commissioning the plant firstly the management I believe falsely announced the plant had been successfully commissioned when in fact it was far from properly commissioned. And NO, to put the first feed through the plant that was completely incompatible with what ROM ore or low grade feed of similar physical characteristics should have been, was not a wise test of plant capability - it ended up wasting considerable time and fouling up the process! Management 101.

Re the high rainfall, it was a significant high rainfall time, however, if the mine area had been properly dewatered ahead of mining, around 6 months in the event of a large pit full of water as it was, was definitely not just a risk management practice, it is called mining 101!. I realise you are not a mining engineer but honestly its a simple practise where water is an issue, and clearly it was at Siana.

And to defend the previous management and yet criticise current management defies logic:
RED5 was amongst the worst performing shares on the market in 2012/2013, not just within the ASX300 - that was at a time when gold was still moving in the rarefied atmosphere. And at a time when RED5 was supposed to be going into low cost production, around US$400/oz. To ignore that ignores the facts. Why defend previous management and criticise current management. To be fair, the change in management actually has been seamless from a market perspective, RED continues to be among the worst performers and that is a fact. I feel sick to say it, I have lost a bomb due to all of the above-mentioned stuff ups, past and present!

To be honest, I am staggered that the company was actually able to raise $50 million from the same institutions who lost in the first instance, but I'm thankful that they did, it will possibly help me to get back a pittance from an already ruined investment. And I'm thankful that Franklin is still accumulating. I don't care that RED had to issue shares at 10 cents, I am grateful that the company is still listed and trading!

So each to their own, but you will never convince me that the previous management is any different to the current management, they are no different, and once I finally get out of this company I won't be looking back!

(Oh Holdonman, no I have only read maybe a couple of dozen of your past posts, seems you are hellbent on creating havoc for current management despite you not holding any shares now, but you have really aimed at the tip of the iceberg in my opinion, I think the ancient past has got a lot to do with what has happened more recently).