What are shareholders thoughts on the delivery of the placement...

What are shareholders thoughts on the delivery of the placement info? Some items that stand out to me:

In classic MAT style - front page of a money raising announcement a list of things that the raising will do:
1 - introduce new sophisticated investors to the Company - yes but this is a side effect hardly worthy of
being the main leading reason. If MAT were that great they would be bought-up without needing to offer a free option to tempt buyers

2 - generate further investor interest in Matsa whilst it develops its exciting portfolio of quality projects - this too is an almost negligible side effect. And seems a bit obnoxious to put second when it is a "hope/possibility" that this will happen, and complete conjecture.

3 - raise $2,475,000 which will be used to advance the Red Dog and Red October gold projects towards production - yes! This is an actual reason. Something that will see the new money hopefully actually generating value - why is this not first on the list? Very odd.

Then at the very end of announcement we have another list of what the money will be used for (which is actually important and would be headlining the announcement for any normal company with nothing to hide from shareholders):
1 - Red Dog gold project – conduct mining studies and complete approvals for the potential
mining scenario of the project - great, a use of funds that could generate value

2 - Red October gold project – assessment of exploration opportunities both within the Red
October mine and exploration ground as well as assess the opportunity to potentially
recommence mining at Red October - great, a use of funds that could generate value

3 - General working capital – the funds will also be used as general working capital to advance
the overall exploration and development of the Lake Carey project, company administration
and corporate requirements - here i see WARNING WARNING. The way MAT report, this item put well down the list of info means it is likely the use for a significant amount of the of the funds. Companies usually have a table with estimated use of new funds, i.e., $2m exploration, $0.5m studies, $0.5m working capital. The lack of info tells me almost all of it is in working capital on the trial mine that is not performing.

They even state the amount raised "before costs" with no mention of what the costs are - this is highly unusual and i certainly haven't seen it before. I mean what is MAT actually paying to have these sophisticated investors on board? Why not tell shareholders? It may well be at a rate to make your eyes water - you cant say because they dont tell you, but i know what i would guess.

A good case study is ABM resources whose trial mine in the NT returned 50% of the grade expected - it broke even in the end if i recall. Thats gold mining - sometimes it can really surprise upside or downside despite the best attempt at modelling. How long will investors be kept in the dark if there are problems in MAT?