This farce just gets worse IMO. So now its clear FAR never ever...

This farce just gets worse IMO.
So now its clear FAR never ever had to PE the whole 35% as many have said on here.
The whole PE farce was centred around FAR getting a backer to PE for them then off load say 30% and keep 5%
So much for informed opinion on here from the ones in the know.

FAR obviously knew they could PE 5% on their own if they desired and had 30 days in which to do that.
That's 5% I say again, so at such a perceived cheap price why would they not do that regardless of any extra hidden costs (which by the way have been proved there were none) and get on with claiming their extra 5%>

Its a sad indictment on management here IMO,
This revelation tells me a lot.
It tells me that FAR were unprepared as was suspected.
It tells me the could not even get the finance in the 30 day period for even 5% so IMO they came up with this hair brained stalling tactic.

Am I the only one besides a few others on here that sees through this farce?
Even the hardened long termers must admit now that this was truly a farce from the very beginning.

FAR had the opportunity to acquire more but couldn't.
Surely now the lame excuse that's been used that FAR were not given the proper details can be thrown out the window?
Even if there was an added cost for a 5% PE why would they care if it was so cheap to acquire?

There is a lesson to be learnt here.
Never believe what the so called experts in the know tell you.
Notice these experts have all left the threads except for the occasional tweet.
Emails have suddenly stopped too.