re: resolution 3,Upon requesting eligibility information from...

re: resolution 3,

Upon requesting eligibility information from the company last week regarding who can and who cant vote for or against the options lifeline, I received information from Mr Landau on Monday.

To paraphrase him , he stated;

Pending confirmation which is forthcoming from the ASX,
in his mind share holders with options cannot vote on resolution 3 unless they expressly state that they will not be participating in the offer- advise formally in a few days.

Based on this , the following may be discussed,

One could assume that the company will lobby a number of institutional holders to vote FOR the resolution so as to secure a $50 mil (approx) insurance policy no later than this time next year if the vote is yes.

Obviously oppie holders would like to see a yes vote but probably cant do much about it voting wise.

RAB and Firebird would be ineligible also as they hold both. (not to mention that chronologically their shares and therefore votes are not ratified till later in the meeting)

Which leaves it in the lap of the heads only holders , be they insto or retail holders.

When you look at the top shareholders, there are some 120 million heads holders .

108 million of which are not associated with options (roughly speaking)

Broadly speaking , there are 4,500 rrs holders

Approximately 1,100 hold Oct 07 options

Roughly 800 hold heads and 07 options

Roughly 3,700 hold heads only (about 900 are unsalable parcels)

Why would a heads only holder vote for a 30% potential dilution and the associated sp fall?

Large insto's may proxy their votes to the chair who will probably use them to vote for the proposition on account of the perceived cash grab if they were exercised.

(the first cash hypothetically may start to roll in around spudding)

So agenda wise you may assume;

Expired opions holders would want a ''yes'' to get an almost free crack at another years leveraging

The company may want a ''yes'' for another crack at some conversion money

What about exclusive fpo holders ?

All fpo holders are supposedly entitled to some 1 for 8 deal that wasn't even worth mentioning in the EFY'S or the AGM.

Is this enough to entice a yes vote from fpo holders?

After all , aren't you voting for 46% dilution and getting an opportunity to make back 12.5% if you purchase the elusive and yet to be mentioned 1 for 8 ers ? (this assumes the AIM placement resolution will get passed....and it most probably will)

ALL retail heads VOTERS , should strongly consider voting on resolution 3, as it seems complacency in abstaining will come at a price otherwise.

Nothing is more irresponsible than the following hypothetical :

''RESOLUTION 3 FOR 56,500,000

AGAINST 33,500,000

ABSTAIN 87,144,376

Happy voting rangers