Hawk let’s move on from the mood of provocative jeering, paranoid witch hunting, and sneering which with some in the ‘no camp’ have - to my eyes - tried to dominate these threads despite rational responses from several posters that have been totally ignored in favour of celebrating stuff like the spray from Blythefan along with other clearly emotional-based posts trying to beat up fear of change.It’s all been sweet courtesy from the no camp?Bah.
I agree, posters on both sides have let themselves down
Until last night, and your last post, you appeared to be above it Hawk, however you revealed yourself then to be more interested in smearing the poster than responding to the argument.
No, I was more than a little shocked to see another side of you TBH
And of course you have the right to vote however you wish - I think I said much the same to someone here yesterday. (I also think I was the only person to respond to their question.)As said let’s move on?Your current argument ‘they have to pay me more or tell me more’ reminds me of that famous story sometimes attributed to George Bernard Shaw;It ends with the line ‘…Madam we’ve already established what you are, now we’re just haggling over the price’.perhaps you know it?
I think it was actually Winston Churchill, but yes, I know it, and lets be honest here - are we not both here for the money?
On what basis do you believe the price/ratio determination by the RCF team, both companies and even their legal firms is not good enough for you?Danger money?If the deal was 16 for 1 would you be seeking 20 to 1 just because you think you can?
No, at 16:1 that would put TMT at 45c. I would give that serious consideration, and probably take it.
And as for needing more information as to why the merger is taking place?You are not a ‘dumbo’ Hawk.TMT had only $16.3m on June 30.It’s had early stage contractors on the ground for months, has been paying attendance/travel costs for all of its presentations, paying that analyst company, paying for a full scale independent review, plus etc etc etc.
You will broker no argument from me about the reckless spending of the TMT board. Usually to themselves for jollies around the country.
It appears to have mislaid a long term and important MOU (or BOA!) with Chinese company CNMNCWhat bills were due on June 30?
That's guesswork on your part - MOU's anyway are seldom worth the paper they aren't written on.
How long can it survive without obtaining more money from somewhere, and how long after that?Remember how cross a few posters here were when Elisha told the world at the last presentation how difficult the funding environment was?You’re not naive either are you?Do you really need to know why this company has decided to combine with the one that’s currently cashed up with more on the way?
Actually, yes, I really DO need to know the rationale behind the takeover. I get the "one mine one orebody" argument, and it makes perfect sense - but the timing doesn't.
It actually reeks of "lets do a massive tree-shake pre-approvals to see who we can scare out"
It's after the takeover I am concerned with - 16:1 or 12:1 or 20:1 - it makes no odds if RCF intend to simply drive the AVL SP down,chomp away on the cheap shares, and turn AVL into a 'holding venture' that is waiting to be flipped for profit to a bigger player in the green energy space.
The RCF proxies won't be ringing me or you - they will be calling just enough people to get the 50% + 1
Retail holders are incredibly vulnerable post takeover - surely you can see this?
As per a comment you will have already noted on the AVL forum; Even ‘Blind Freddie’ can see why the merger has been decided upon.
We will all find out very shortly.
Expand
