If this is a bad deal for gun then why has the board and...

If this is a bad deal for gun then why has the board and management given it a thumbs up when they all have a vested interest in seeing gun perform and move forward. This company has been in the doldrums for years and with most share holders reluctant to contribute more funds to a company that is cash strapped and needs major capital inflow to survive and progress its assets this seems a logical means of achieving it. If our only argument against is dilution then show me a junior explorer that has not undergone dilution to get to production and I will bare my posterior in bourke street. The only asset gun has which is ready for development is Coburn, and with mineral sand products value being so low we are unable to find funding for its development. It is time for gun to role the dice and for it to survive this deal is crucial. As share holders in highly speculative companies such as gun we should always consider our investment as a high risk gamble.

Cheers ns

DYOR