I understand the argument that a change in management may cause a period of delay while they get up to speed on the inner workings of the project. What I am genuinely interested in hearing from you is your opinion on how much longer current management should be given to get it done. If the 249D fails, do you believe they will be able to get finance locked and dirt being dug in 6 months, 12 months 18 months? How much longer in your opinion should shareholders give them?
A good debate is healthy. I personally feel the 249D may lead to 1 step back then 3 steps forward. I believe current management will continue to be 1 step forward 1 step back, 1 step forward 1 step back. The reason I believe this is because that has been the play for the past 5 years. If you want to take the view that some of the cause of this is out of their control (COVID ect) then fair enough. But what about what is in their control (communication, shareholder engagement ect). My view from history is they believe it is a win win situation for them. If nothing happens then great, they take home $500k a year for not doing a lot. If they stumble across success then great, they are legends for brining the project to fruition.
My belief is they have had their chance and they have been found wanting. I would much rather 1 step back with the hope of 3 steps forward then being in idle while PB sits in his office and taking long lunches on $500k a year leaching from those who see the potential.
These are my thoughts and I would genuinely like to hear from those who would like to make the argument against my stance. Even better if it is supported by past evidence or strong reasoning. The reason I would like my thoughts to be challenged is I honestly can’t see how others see the past 5 years differently. Happy to be persuaded if a strong argument can be made.
TNG Price at posting:
9.4¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
