Apologies, I should have included the full quote from @LM77 post
"He stated that when he was considering strategies for TNG moving forward, the option of taking the company private was immediately discounted as he believes with a project this size that you need a social licence to get it permitted with all of the necessary approvals and funding requirements. Therefore the only option is for the company to remain publicly listed. I hope that allays your concerns."
I'd add that a McCannon Brookes or more specifically, an Andrew Forrest type association was something which I have always factored in as a possibility for TNG, particularly considering the Brown family initial & long standing support of FMG until it was a force to be reckoned with. And it that was a hard fought battle, but Warren & family stuck in there recognizing what it took & how long it took to turn a block of dirt into an enterprise.
I'm sure I've mentioned that the ongoing support from the Brown family, just as it was there for FMG, has been a factor in maintaining my support for TNG. That the structure & make-up of the BOD no longer has their support has weighed heavily on my mind for some time & it was only the catalyst of seeing what was being proposed by the TNG change management team which includes Grant Wilson & Dr Anthony Robinson but backed by what I can only describe as some of TNG's more astute investors - including Bruno D, Paul, W & M Brown & of course Grant.
And in terms of due diligence having spoken with Grant, had a very good review of his published articles on AFR & watched the shareholder engagement coupled with his enthusiasm which I initially held for the company (TNG) & what it is trying to do, I'm comfortable for this team to be part of the decision making process at the BOD level. Because I believe they have shareholder's best interests in mind which means I believe they can steer this project into the execution phase.
I mentioned a couple of days back of watching how damaging a short seller could be with a little bit of misinformation that is deliberately designed to mislead investors. In the case of that company, when I dug into what they were actually doing, found the opposite of what the shorts were trying to convince people of - the more I looked, the more I found that to be the case - there was substance behind the companies claims, whereas innuendo & scuttlebutt was behind the shorts claims. The short's were inventing fear out of thin air & had a team of social media warriors on that companies message boards amplifying investors pain & misery. After applying the same level of scrutiny to TNG, my honest take is that were TNG subjected to the same attention from shorts, mounting any sort of response would be difficult if not impossible. For the sake of all long time shareholders, we need to avoid that.
I'd hoped that the BOD would see fit to engage with the change management team as I truly believe it is in the companies best interests. The past few days has only reinforced that opinion as Grant has been professional to a tee whilst the rumblings on here from disinterested parties with no skin in the game, have raised even deeper concerns.
What matters at the end of the day, which is why I invested initially, is developing Mt Peake, building & proving TIVAN works to make titano-magnetite deposits economic ore bodies to develop. Because building one will lead to building many.
We live in an information environment which people can & do use to suit their own purposes, and it is my strongly held conviction that some sort of reset is needed to achieve what we are all (I would hope) want for TNG/TIVAN & that this proposal & timing for that to happen is the way to go.
