cds directors want to be like ben bernanke

At this stage, I need more than self congratulation on a sales pitch - I need results, I need REAL investment banks involved, I need the directors to view the Company as a company owned by holders, rather than a currency printing press owned by the directors.

As I see it, the issues are:

1. Tricom involved - does that not ring any alarm bells???
Holders would be well advised to DYOR on these guys. In the investment banking world they are used toilet paper. If these guys are all that CDS can get, is CDS what goes on the toilet paper???

2. What exactly are Tricom facilitating?
- The issue for Tassie and SA?
- The issue of director shares?
- The proposed placement?
See point re: toilet paper.

3. Directors Entitled more than holders???
- Sure, the directors have worked hard but so have holders in order to finance their shares. I think the deal being put to shareholders doesn't respect this.

4. Directors Entitled?
- Since the Nov 07 round, we were told RSBA March, then April. There aint many days in April as yet. Has a delay been communicated to the market? Where is the activity update?

5. Director Entitlement Option Strike price
- How can we vote on a strike price when we have no info at all on the historic resource data?

- Why should we vote a strike price when the directors are aware of the resource potential and the holders are not?

6. Share placement - To who?
- Who are the shares being placed to? See point 2 in relation to cutting some fat to holders, as opposed to just directors and their mates.

7. Share placement - Why dilute holders at a low price?
- Scott has said they have enough cash at bank at current cash burn to continue until October and that a BFS for SA should be for Q2 08. When will the placement occur? If they have enough cash at bank to continue to October, it makes sense to issue 50 million shares when the RSBA approval is signed off, at least preliminary BFS is done for Tassie and SA are signed off. Giving 50 million to their mates and Tricom is selling out holders.

8. Directors disclosing?
- They aren't disclosing progress to the market in relation the mines and I think there is enough drill data to infer an resource estimate. Therefore why should holders vote on something that they have 0 information on, that dilutes their holding?

So I'm inclined to agree: What I'm being asked to vote on is the directors being able to take the pi$$ and so I'm inclined to vote no! When the RSBA and a resource is defined then I'm happy for the directors to reward themselves.