Heads we win ...tails you lose!, page-93

RM seems like a good bloke, but he's not my close friend, I have only met him once.  During this debate I have been cautioned that I should not be emotional, yet others are emotional, ...but I don't know if they are his friend or relative or sophisticated investor or confidant ..so its not relevant if  you are "offended" or talk about trains and plains and meetings, what is relevant is logic and reason.

I'm addressing these issues because I believe it is the right thing to do so Fuzz, please and tell me I'm on a morals campaign ...I'm entitled to raise issues when and where I see fit ...so  don't give me a lecture and tell me what to do and then I won't reciprocate.

Reading through all the posts there are a few salient issues that jump out at me.

1.  There is a contention that we could not have possibly predicted a result like this.  Yet it was often mentioned that we should win or we could be forced to re-tender or it is unlikely that we might lose.  As far I can tell, a re-tender would be worse than our current situation and there is almost no doubt that it would have left us without security of tenure/lease over Isabel and surely left us without the security that we needed for our funding agreement with Incor.  How can anybody look me straight in the face and say that this situation was beyond comprehension?  Even the exact situation we find ourselves in was inferred by the arguments of some of the legal eagles (as others have pointed out).

2.  The agreement with Incor was only announced on the 4th of November 2015.  Of course we knew that this agreement needed to be secured by Isabel and this relied on a positive CoA appeal.

3.  Axiom has a long history of private placements:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4
0	2016	March	Private Placement	5 Mil
1	2015	Nov	Funding Partnership	15 Mil
2	2015	July	Private Placement	5 Mil
3	2014	April	Private placement	1.25 Mil
4	2013	October	Rights issue 4.7% discount	4.7 Mil
5	2013	June	Private Placement	2Mil
6	2013	Feb	Private Placement	3 Mil
7	2012	October	Private Placement	1.75 Mil
8	2012	September	Private Placement	1 Mill
9	2012	June	Private Placement	$750,000
10	2012	March	Private Placement	8.2 Mill

4.  There is no way that this situation could have note been reasonably excluded from the realms of possibility: therefore we failed in our risk assessment and we left the door open to panic selling which is what occurred.  At the time we struck the deal with Incor our SP was hovering around the mid 30c, and we could have raised 10 of 15 Mil from a SSP to all shareholders and done the job properly ...with no issue of debt covenants in the case of an outcome such as this.  But we didn't and this failure led to sophisticated investors once again (as they have NINE times since March 2012), get access to cheap shares to the detriment of the shareholders.  There is a clear pattern here, and as a shareholder I don't like it.  Me and AVQ are not in a marriage (but it feels like I'm being cheated on) ...it's supposed to be a business partnership.  Shane, we had months to organist a cap raise ...sorry I'm not buying the story.

5.  For me, the last straw was that management (and their friends) should benefit from this clear failure in risk management -it is just not ethical IMHO.  The other issue is the "shipping by December" comment and the fact that two EGM's meetings were called in a desperate effort to keep the options.  No one seemed to be worried about the cost of the EGM's. so why worry about the cost of fairer and far more substantial SPP?

6.  There are a number of shareholders who have expressed dismay at RM's remuneration, which must be around the $800,000 mark including SI housing etc.  I'm not including airfares etc, because that is simply a business expense IMHO.  In comparison we have Michael Spreadborough the COO of Sandfire Resources on $655,229 (market cap of 900 Mil) and the CEO of FAR on substantially less than RM.  IN contrast, we have a MC of $521 Mil and a long way from making a profit.  RM puts in a great effort clearly, as he should, but his remuneration is way out of whack by contrast with peers.  There is also a number of CEO's who have taken a voluntary reduction in compensation during difficult times, and I would like to see RM propose this himself, even if it is until we are a producer.   

There is more support for a substantial SPP and I will only pursue the issues that are supported by the shareholders who contact me as some already have.

Again, if you are concerned and want to express your support for a SPP or RM's salary to be re-considered:

spj377645 (at) yahoo.com.au

Cheers,

SJB