Some interesting points raised in recent posts.Merve your post...

Some interesting points raised in recent posts.

Merve your post of 15.30 succinctly puts the issues into context. I would like to colabourate to get some action.

I am mindfull that in bringing these things up it could be seen by some to be damaging to the company's/shareholders interests. However in this case the performance of the company has been so bad that fundamental reforms are required or we will not have a company.

At the center of all these issues is the fact that there has been inadequate disclosure. It would seem to me that it would be beyond belief for the vendor of the assets being purchased not to have agreed to a specific consideration. Why have the shareholders not been told the full facts? This surely is a breach of continuous disclosure rules particularly due to the size of the transaction.

The other disclosure issue that concerns me is the failure of the company to adequately inform shareholders as to whats happening with the current drilling program. The company itself and Mr Kennedy have been incredibly upbeat about the drilling program but we now face a dearth of information. I guess one of two things could be happening. The drilling could have been slowed down so as not to come up with anything that might have added value to the exploration assets being purchased or nothing has been found and this is an attempt to purchase a very big ticket in a new lottery.

Whatever the case the shareholders are totaally in the dark and the company has only itself to blame for the situation we are now in. We are not investing in BHP here. Our investment is speculative we all know that but we do want to be properly informed.

ASF, I understand that the issue to shareholders was to be non renounceable. This may be changed. It should be. In my opinon the issue should be 1 for 1, renounceable. Argonaughts placement should be reduced to accomodate this. They, or some other party, could underwrite the issue for a fee and also take up any shortfall.

I wonder if when the company makes its announcement it will disclose what the fees payable to Argonaught are? Presumably a lot of the placement will be going to SI's associated with current shareholders and associates. Easy work for Argonaught, all they would have to have done was beat people back with sticks.

Okeefe and Rowscoe, you are both obviously very charitable fellows. That is an admirable trait. Personally I have lost confidence in the Board. I remember reading a media article in which Mr Kennedy said to the effect that he was not a developer but an explorer.

Recommissioning low grade treatment plants is not easy and I have no confidence that this board has the skills to oversee such a development. The Board needs to be reformed and proper process and procedures followed. I noted in the annual report it was stated that the board had only met formally twice in the previous year!

Do not assume that the Fortnum project will be a "cash cow". It could be profitable but will need carefull management.

I guess we now all have to wait to see what comes from the company and that they will look at past events and admit that thier performance, particularly in keeping the shareholders and market, has been sub optimal. It is also to be hoped that the issue that some of them previously approved will be modified and an overhaul of the board be carried out as soon as possible.

Sorry to be long winded, thats all for now. Maintain the rage.