I am not sure as to the purpose of the post made by the CGB rep.
FACT 1Posters are entitled to ask questions based on the available facts without being subjected to a heavy handed response. Shareholders are, given intermittent information from the company, either documented or communicated through the rep, within their rights to keep asking the same questions. Nothing prevents this - although it appears that you might like to restrict and or, limit some lines of enquiry by shareholders.
FACT 2The expenditure by CGB on services provided by AGMPL is a fact. The amount is noted in the 2019 Annual Report. And it shows an increase on the same figure noted in the 2018 Annual Report. Shareholders and any other person, for that matter, is entitled to question and inquire into those facts. CGB has the opportunity to respond whenever and how so ever it chooses.
1. "
We are concerned that this is potentially a form of "Fake news""
Fake news? Despite the fact that "
fake news" is itself a fiction, you consider that there are different forms of "fake news" and that you are able to distinguish different forms of this rather illusory concept? You are aware that President Trump uses that term to avoid scrutiny by some of the most respected journalists in the World - you do know that - yes? Outside of the walls of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500, United States, "fake news" is a complete nonsense.
What might be next, "
alternative facts"?
Are the loans that have been advanced by CGB to related entities an example of "fake news" or, a
form of fake news? You appear to comment in broad terms on the legalities of the BOD (which to my knowledge has not been questioned on HC) and yet responses to other issues that have been raised are not forthcoming. And those issues are not '
commercial in confidence' as they are noted in the Annual Report.
Is it possible for you, as the rep, to provide responses to the following?
1. How do the loans that have ben advanced to related entities benefit CGB shareholders?
2. Can you confirm whether the Directors participated in the recent capital raising ?
3. Can Volcan, given their CGB share holdings, pay the $1,200,000 that is outstanding for ML1492? If not, why not?
4. And if the bauxite assets are to be disposed of can the BOD assure shareholders that they will not be given over to a related entity?
I wonder, rather than merely relying on 'Trumpisms' to chasten other posters - why you don't (as the rep) point out the errant "
fake news" elements / parts / aspects of any post that you feel is "
mischievous" or "misleading"?
The misplaced heavy handedness never ceases to amaze me - "
fake news", "
mischievous", "
rumour mongering" accompanied by inapplicable adjectives and verbs. I think that it is a distracting and unnecessary response to issues which could be easily addressed by referencing facts and responding to the the issues at hand.
And the lunches with the "salad" from the local shop - what was the relevance of that paragraph please?
"
QUESTIONS & RESPONSES FROM THE COMPANY
At this present time, if you have concerns about anything you read on Social media, please contact the company directly at[email protected]and we will able to assist you."
That, I think, was all that was needed to be communicated.
@708"
It was considerate of them to put shareholders interests first in the capital raising"
Altruistic directors you say? Well ... ok ... then.
Whatever 'spin' that is put on this, the fact is that CGB has used and is now using cash supplied by ... who ... remind us?
And CGB is not not using any cash supplied by ... who ... remind us?
