Pfeifer1982 @Pledge (and yes @sponge_) you are off topic. Not...

Pfeifer1982 @Pledge (and yes @sponge_) you are off topic. Not your first post pfeifer1982 that was absolutely on topic - but you've followed pledge who posts anywhere he wants.

There is a webinar thread. And an infinite amount of other threads that could be started.

I get that this thread may be of no interest to you right now - but I don't think either of you want to be on the less informed side of things if either Silviu or the CYP board brief some parts of the market more than other parts.

That is the substantive concern behind what seems to be long boring lines of analysis, which by the way, I've checked further (including a phone call to ASX) and it still seems valid.

ie. Corporate Governance Statements are periodic disclosure statements - what is in them including at 5.3 is entitled to be relied upon by markets - so if a company says we'll release the contents of new presentations to the ASX first - they are supposed to do that.

It a breach of the periodic (annual reports are periodic so are 4Gs and governance statements) - that's an operational rule - goes ultimately back to a level playing field notion of what is fair in a fair and orderly market - its not fair (to make an analogy to have retail shareholders getting presentations after sophs - as that gives the sophs a lot more reading and research time - doesn't matter if the market is open or not - its analogous to having an exam and some get the questions ahead of the others.

Continuous disclosure (GH1971)s argument has exceptions for incomplete proposals - but the reasonable person part (the reasonable person test is objective) logically should stop the boards avoiding doing things they promised elsewhere they would do - ie you can't say you will disclose presentations to the ASX ahead as part of your periodic disclosure and then claim an exception under the continuous disclosure when its unreasonable to put aside your corporate governance statement under periodic disclosure.

You are bored - probably - but you are affected - you will lose fairness to yourselves as well - if you don't care as the standards need support to be upheld - why shouldn't CYP do the same sort of presentation to sophs including advanced peaks at results next time if they aren't challenged on doing it last time - why shouldn';t Silviu keep selectively briefing some parts of the market and not all of it - eg - the Cameron England comments - if he gets away with it.

Its not in your interest pfeifer1982 or pledge to get in the way of upholding a fair and level playing field in terms of market informing.