key management, page-22

I get the impression Zeta need Ken in that consultant role post reverse T/O because he has the information they need on KEY's existing projects.
Sounds to me like aspects of the current projects have not been documented or otherwise why would they need him!
Guess it is a good way of ensuring continuity of employment if that is the case.

>>

I am expecting a no vote to be followed quickly by a requisition to replace the board. Hopefully a new board can quickly asses the projects and stem the cashburn even if it means shutting down production and selling every single asset except Nyuni.

Even if the above means we are sitting cash backed at 3-4c per share in 6 months time with limited cash burn, that still gives a new board a chance to find a better deal for a reverse list for KEY? Something that doesn't value the company at close to zero. And something with CLEAR upside for KEY shareholders, because, after all, we own the company and should be given the right to stump up pro-rata capital for development on any project.

I have had to face up to the fact I have burnt almost $500k on KEY which in retrospect was little more that a T4P 'hundreds of BCF' HC rampfest which is endemic to the posting styles on this site and this, combined with management decisions that shocked me, have spelt the end of days for KEY.

I doubt I will EVER recoup a cent of those losses with the current deal but with another it may be possible.
Worst case is I lose my remaining cash which arguably is not significant.

These guys have well and truly painted us into a corner and written off the assets in the balance sheet to give us no choice. But that was by design. You vote Yes, you play into the hands of those in Perth that run ENDLESS cycles of this forms of ASX listing.

On principle you have to vote 'No' even of the company gets sent to the administrators in 2 years time. At least then we can have some forensic accounting as to where, like CVI, all the money has gone and why the dozens of pages in the numerous prospectuses were just vacuous promises and the single meaningful paragraph in each of the fat glossy brochures was the small print paragraph that contained the disclaimer.

Just goes to show; You can stuff a prospectus with 100% bull, and as long as you include that little disclaimer paragraph, ASIC wont touch you. It's the Perth way. They have it down pat over there now. This deal is just another in an endless line of gutting the register and giving huge numbers of low prices shares to management to 'try' again.

These deals are all about a select few making money or taking less of a bath, while the retail investors on the register are fed to the wolves.

On principle: No.
But principles do seem to be in short supply these days.