Richland accepts KNL terms

Just starting a new thread because I think it is well overdue.
Since the announcement of an extension to the exclusivity period there have been a lot of unrelated or grossly extrapolated posts that appear to distort some announcements.
Now I could be as wrong as anyone else on these KNL treads, but I will try to stick to the point, the MOU, and not confuse the relativity of an exclusivity period or react to its independent developments, disproportionately to the main game, the MOU!
I rely upon the following statements;
Merelani and Mahenge Graphite Update 10 June 2014 (Kibaran announcement)
6 month extension of exclusivity period for Graphite JV, Tanzania 8 August 2014 (Richland announcement)
to support my aforementioned comments.
Nevertheless I do not wish to be presumptive by listing all the questionable comments nor personalise the posters. Rather let me put forward the following positive and hopefully differing viewpoints for your consideration;
Fact: Merelani and Mahenge Graphite Update 10 June 2014
“The Company has received written confirmation from Richland Resources Limited and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Tanzanite One, accepting the terms offered by Kibaran for the sole graphite rights to the historic Merelani graphite mine. The Company is now finalising a binding agreement for approval by Tanzanite One’s joint venture partner, the State Mining Company (STAMICO).”
Opinion: [ so two parties are in agreement and only await the third party , the State Mining Company (STAMICO) to issue written acceptance and as this is a government department, be patient but positive as there are too many benefits, to all be listed here, to be gained by this developing country, if this agreement is finalised ]
6 month extension of exclusivity period for Graphite JV, Tanzania 8 August 2014
Fact: ‘’Richland Resources Ltd, the gemstone producer, cutter and polisher, today announces the 6 month extension of the exclusivity period’’
Opinion: Firstly as background let me state, for what it’s worth on this anonymous forum, I was a CEO, NED and NEC of an ASX entity and I provoked some M & A plays involving exclusivity periods and MOUs. As most of us know at the beginning, the suitor will demand exclusivity and refuse to spend a penny until an acceptable exclusivity period is in hand. However the target will only want to grant the least exclusivity period possible, so as to not prohibit any new suitors or higher offers, for too long. KNL’s board whom I state I do not know, for what it’s worth on this anonymous forum, should be congratulated for achieving the first stage , i.e. Richland agreeing to terms within the first exclusivity period and commiserated with as they must be frustrated with the delays in dealing with a third world government utility (STAMICO). Now exclusivity periods often expire before MOUs are completed and it is paramount for the suitor to have the exclusivity period extended, irrespective of how close the conclusion of the MOU maybe or not.
Also the onus and challenge is upon the suitor to have the exclusivity period extended, if necessary, and often this will take great skills, which again the KNL board have exhibited. Although that’s enough praise for them at the moment as there is a brickbat for them in my conclusion.
Based upon the aforementioned reasoning, please stop refereeing to the MOU agreement as being extended as that matter it still on hand as it should be. We have been informed that a lot has already happened and been concluded, but it is all up to the government now and we may not hear another thing about the MOU until it is signed off or otherwise. It could be today, another day, a week or a month but it will be hard for us mere mortals to foresee any correct date.
Finally, off topic, I will be voting against any upcoming motion, whose basis, is to incentivize any manager or board member. As I believe the best incentive is for them to know, that if you achieve your KPI’s you will be sincerely appreciated, thanked and respected but more importantly you won’t be replaced ASAP.