General Discussion Topics, page-103593

Hope is NEVER a good strategy for success in investing only TRUST.

However to foster TRUST one has to have a strong culture of BELIEF , ACCOUNTABILITY , PERFORMANCE , & EXECUTION ........or funnily enough a successful BAPE !! .......

And reading some of the post over the last couple of days - Particularly those from coming from sharejon. The thing is , and with respect to Loui in what he was endeavoring to try and achieve. Meetings like this almost NEVER end well because they lack the structure and are then subjected to public scrutiny , incorrect interpretation , and further speculations.

So knowing that , with respects to sharejon and potential investors like him or her is that I don''t think its so much as to whether a poster is lying about their previous gains , or even being bitter through their actions as then seen through down ramping .... as I think it more illustrates the frustration of NEW investors who are looking for an entry with a reasonable degree of confidence in the direction of the SP.

And so after now more than just a few months of sideways actions and downward pressure coupled with what now has transpired with this Capital raise is that it leaves virtually no room to go with respects to where , when , and at what price NEW investors feel comfortable with their entry into this Company.

And unfortunately that is the real risk on the SP which whether you agree or disagree has been brought about by Managements actions or lack thereof in regards to their repeated communication strategies , delays , and missed opportunities in adhering to their own timing commitments made on these so called milestone announcements. .

And even if I was to pause for a moment and be critical of what essentially has been communicated back from this so called ' Meet ' with Brett........, I would have to be honest in saying that there was at least ONE common theme which contained 3 negative vibes. And these vibes did NOT look professional coming from a MD of a near $2 billion ASX market cap Top 200 company.

So in no specific order these ' vibes ' are as follows :-

The FIRST one was how there seemed to be this ' negative ' overtone about KP missing the train and NOT even having a seat on the train. This does not help the perceptions to what appears as an already strained relationship with our No. 1. Joint Venture partner in this Quebec Investment.

The SECOND negative vibe was the comment which was a direct ' shot across the bow ' of Sayona's home exchange regulator the ASX. This was the comment about the inordinate workload created by this Authority , the same Authority which insists ALL companies adhere to these compliance processes ( we hope ) , ....and for good reasons.

The bit about the 20 lawyers being hired whether it was tongue in cheek or not was also not necessary because for those who may or not be aware , it has some inferences to the various compliance issues Piedmont has been subjected to in regards class actions and perhaps unfounded short report attacks etc.... And I guess not everyone can afford or are in the position to speak out like Elon and express themselves about the SEC rules. Because the reality is that nobody is above those rules and requirements.

And it doesn't really matter whether you are a $ billion dollar company or a small cap mineral explorer , the compliance issues are pretty much the much with respects to quarterly cash flow and activity statements as well as corps law and ASIC regulations which govern your annual reporting and various other disclosure requirements etc....

And it is NOT the ASX's fault that Sayona whether it was a sub $50 million market cap company or a near $2 billion dollar company , that they still made repeated simple mistakes in their half year financial reports or various other cashflow statement releases etc..... They did this then , and they still seemingly do it now, and to deflect it solely onto the ASX exchange and its reporting regime is unprofessional in my opinion and really didn't need to be repeated on this public forum because that is a private view of Brett's.

So I'd thought that a more professional answer would be to perhaps make reference to the sheer amount of extra work required by the regular disseminating of additional separate cost accounting measures put in place to account for the multiple growing projects of distinctly different JV partners - vis a vis the NAL Joint Venture as an example in being more the reasoning's of the ADDITIONAL admin and financial workloads bestowed upon the business.

So this second vibe brings me right to the THIRD vibe which was how he sort of openly deflected the blame for this onto PC with the reference to the ' Old Guard '.....which is not something you should be eluding to from your CEO / MD I would think.

Especially when this ' Old Guard ' member is about to leave with in excess of 150 million shares overhanging the stock , and without having a home yet for that parcel.

In that same breadth , I think it very unorthodox to refer to the other couple of BOD members ' skittishness ' from their previous Altura failure and administration as the main impetus to ' go now ' with respect to the current capital raise. Now I've already mentioned in my previous post how this so called ' Concern ' will or should ultimately prove itself out by the exercising or foregoing of their 15.0 cent Directors options. If you're so concerned about capital , then I would think as a Director you will endeavor to bring in those attached funds by converting .....even if it does increase your average capital cost per share somewhat. And $6 million pays a few bills right .....

So I would have thought a more relevant reference to the capital needs would have been more referenced to the historical and applicable failures of both NAL and Nemaska if you're gonna go there with that as an excuse . Especially since the location is more relevant to our current operations , and in my opinion , you don't have to highlight deeper concerns which may or may not exist coming from the fragility of your current BOD members. Maybe this is why they are perceived now to be too conservative or not assertive enough for the emerging and fast changing Canadian critical minerals space. In either case , he Brett could have referenced in a more broader sense the former Quebec landscape rather than appear again to throw 2 other BOD members under the bus in the conversation. Because in the context , it could even mean we have a ' Divided ' BOD.

But even so , surely by choosing that reasoning is a long shot given how buoyant and supported the whole Canadian critical minerals investment space is at the current moment. Its an absolute ' Magnet ' for Capital , and that is enough in itself to have said that with a reference to say the economic backdrop and global uncertainties which could arise moving forward , so we decided to go now.

Having said that , Most LARGE cap companies tent to do their raising's post release of their year end accounts in August etc..... with smaller explorer type's joining the fray before all that ' quality ' hits the market . So there must be better reasons that saying your 2 BOD members were feeling a bit nervous based on past experiences to go ahead and tap the market now . I mean what is worse. Sending your SP down and trading sideways for more months on end , and potentially scaring off NEW potential investor appetite , or pitching a higher price after some favorable news in order to retain those Canadian Investors as well as demonstrating some much needed growth in your SP and valuation.

Add to all of this , this whole notion that Sayona already enjoys a luxurious position of having Quebec alongside its expanding Moblan project to the tune of 40% , and this excuse that the BOD thinks it more prudent based on past experience to go now just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

So I too don't think or see the need to have necessarily gone now for this seemingly ' blind sided ' cash grab....unless there was some level of desperate timing tied to it ( be it positive or negative - we don't know really ) .

Either way , it certainly opens the company up for further speculation as to WHY NOW ?

So having said of of this , I can see why some might perceive the Q&A at a Collins Street Bar with a single retail investor as being somewhat unorthodox . And particularly , the way in which the comments have been translated back to the social media which are then subject to various levels of interpretation and scrutiny. And with some of the underpinning themes being somewhat negative and unprofessional.

Just look at how some of the forum has transgressed back to openly criticizing our JV partner Piedmont. None of this is helpful, and in my opinion has been elevated back into the discussion because of this Meeting.