I dont believe it was even a possibility - No company would even...

I dont believe it was even a possibility - No company would even test their bankers by trying to pay a dividend whilst operating outside their covenants. Those that thought that there was going to be one dont know bankers in my opinion.

They would have asked the company to cease all dividends until the facility was within its covenants. That would have been the very minimum demanded in my opinion.

Personally i would not mind a CR and in fact I dont really mind if the founder sells out as well - I think that someone should be blamed for the (my opinion) stupid special dividend that really only benefited the advisers. The share price is 40% of the issue price of 50c and some clever advisers got around $600K for all that. The industry is down but really would we have been this far down if we had just stayed as we were - There would have been about $3 million more in the company and 16.5 ,million less shares ...

There are plenty of times I just think that management should stick to the knitting and ignore the clever accountants and attorney's who have these great ideas but really it just makes their profits and profit share better and afterwards you suffer the unintended consequences.

I would even go for a SPP but would prefer a rights issue. Look at note 6 - The Overdraft costs look like around 8% and the facility fee has doubled - Maybe a rights issue to raise around 15% of capital or around $3 million to $4 million could in fact do wonders for the cost of bankers.