in reply to @Y4ukikmycow But Y4, retail acted at the AGM ......

in reply to @Y4ukikmycow
But Y4, retail acted at the AGM ... they didn't have the numbers - and don't hang this on institutions or PLL ... I mean seriously, 90%+ of retail shareholders desire PLL bankrupt, the JV dissolved and the OTA torn up (irrespective that it was a deal agreed upon by both parties). Why would PLL vote against itself ... it was said often enough here they shouldn't even be allowed to nominate a director even though they are the largest shareholder.

What happened to the EGM post AGM. What happened to the class action lawsuit. That's retail in (in)action. Even ALB reeled in their plans and layed off employees. Times are tough. Altura is stain on their records that wont ever be removed - but have they learned anything? Up to the individual to judge that one.

We know (or at least you should) from that $200M CR that NAL was expected to be a bit of a "cash furnace" during rampup (they told you that ... in the "uses of cash") - but even at AGM time with the price of SC then, they were still "hopefull" that it was going to be at least somewhat OCF +ve and FCF -ve (due to additional Capex). The crash in price put an end to that and you have posters clamoring for C&M ... now that would end NAL's (not SYA's and not PLL's) life (again).

Cost control, getting to nameplate, full and transparent communications (especially as it relates to NAL and where SYA's sources and uses of cash are ... NOT THIS CONSOLIDATED view where SYQ/SYA is lumped together) - these are things SYA controls. They have SFI, and likely much more than what is being communicated.

The 1MC/SYA is a poor look ... but as JB says he doesn't want to be CEO of SYA and is there in an "acting" role (gosh you could have some fun with that) - so if there was something that required decision making that affected both sides, surely JB would recuse himself from the SYA side in that process.