Member Info for G_G_G

Anyway, I think I've made my points clear. I'm going to step back and let you guys see what I've been saying unfold over the coming months (just like last time for the newbies). At least everyone can take solace in the fact this will bounce up and down on an upward trajectory toward 21p over the next 12 months (unless of course they do it again). But for god's sake stop talking about 'true value', because it makes no difference until the bod's mates have finished offloading the wonderful handout they've received.

Nice post LB, but following Kipling's 'If' would mean an investor can never be disappointed with the actions of their bod. And I'm certainly not going to blame myself for their lack of integrity and regard for PIs when they did this deal.

Tony, the rebuttal of 'why not sell up' really does need to stop. It's poor and I've answered this question on more than one occasion and I know you've read the answer. You on the other hand haven't answered many of my questions. Fact is, as angry as I may be with the bods actions to create the current share price destruction, and the fact we once again have a massive value disconnect, it isn't going to make me sell at the bottom. After all, why didn't you sell up at 5p when you were questioning their integrity? It's a throwaway line and you can do better.

As for me ramming my pov down people's throat. I could say the same thing about you singing the bod's praises on this 'transformational deal' that has caused the share price to move further away from the 21p true value they've now placed on the company. What we say and think makes no difference to what is going to happen to the share price next. Just the IIs until the bod do another 'transformational deal', which may or may not actually benefit all shareholders. But maybe we'll at least see eye to eye on things if they do it again.

'I wouldn’t touch ZEN with a barge-poll. I wouldn’t touch ZEN with With your barge-poll.'

I'm surprised bots, you and Milan strike me as two great minds that think alike.

One more thing, because some of us see things in a somewhat more realistic light, it doesn't mean we're trying to 'talk down' the share price. Or we're not holders. I'd like nothing more for us to be at 21p. But there's a reason why we're not there, and it lies with the way the bod has done this deal. Not the deal itself, but the way they have done it. All our talking of the bod having sold us out in favor of IIs won't make one iota of difference to how long it will take to reach true value. And all the pumping in the world won't change anything either. All because there's now 50% more shares in the hands of IIs who can buy and sell at will. Fundamentals and underlying value will mean nothing over the next 6-12 months when you've done a deal in this way. And I for one refuse to believe the bod are so clueless they didn't know this would happen when they did the deal. They may as well save their breath with their 'market has got it wrong' bull****.

As for integrity Tony, you've questioned their integrity on a number of occasions for a number of things. One of which was their treatment of PIs versus IIs if I remember correctly. All that's happening is some of us are doing it again, and for the very same reason. I'd seriously like to know your answer to my previous questions - What are your thoughts if they do it again at 21p in 12 months and hand 50% more shares to IIs at 14p for another 'great deal'? Still no other way? Still no chance of using debt? Still treating PIs and IIs equally? Integrity still intact?

'Imagine if we had been discussing a rights issue one month back and then trying to raise the funds - what will the offer price have been then?'

Even better Tony, imagine if they had been negotiating a debt facility (rbl, revolving credit facility etc) 3 months ago for this very reason. What would the share price be now? They talked of acquisitions, yet never got themselves prepared to pay with some degree of debt. Strange, it's as though they were always going to fund any major acquisition through a raise. I ask again Tony, if they print another 500m shares when we're 21p and hand them to IIs for 14p for another 'great deal', what will you think then? Still all shareholders being treated fairly? Still no chance to use debt funding? And what do you think will happen to the share price?

As for what I've mentioned previously, I said the way this great deal was structured would sink the share price. And I said they would then come out and start talking about the underlying value of the company being much higher and they think the market has got it wrong. It's f@cking mind boggling (but not surprising) they have come to say the market has got it wrong. They got it wrong when they raised 50% more shares for the entire acquisition, without any lock-ins for the IIs who jumped at taking it up. It would always happen. And until PIs pay a premium for all the extra shares the IIs are happy to sell, there will always be a value disconnect. You got f@cked Tony, just like me. Do me a favor, don't start repeating 'it's a great deal, we should be 21p and the market has gotten it wrong' over the next 6 months when it's so obvious as to why there's going to be a value disconnect now and for some time to come. And remember, we've been here before.

If this is a precursor to a fund raise it would be unbelievably poor form. A raise at this level would likely take us to record lows, even though we've been led to believe the tariff is due any day now. This is literally the biggest milestone for the company to date. If they are confident the project is going ahead, and we'll reach the tariff milestone relatively soon, then SF and mgt need to cash in a modest amount low priced warrants / options. And the sooner they do this the better. Once the share price re-rates to 10p on the back of the tariff no-one will mind if they raise some more money at 8p. But down here, before we jump to 10p, would be pretty dodgy in my books. If the project moves ahead SF will need to cash in those warrants / options at some point anyway, so why not execute a small amount of them now. To be fair mgt have done this before, at much higher prices, so at least they have a track record of doing the 'right thing'. But who knows, maybe the coal project is about to fall over, which is why SF isn't cashing in any of his lower priced options / warrants. I'm trying to stay +ve on this, but mgt clearing up our funding concern, even if it's only enough to take us to year end, will also address confidence in the project. It's a very big win : win so not sure why they haven't done it already. EPC contracts wouldn't hurt either. All in all I believe there's far too much that has been done for it to fall over. Many of these things they have raised in the corporate presentation. So I'm still of the opinion it will move ahead. I just hope this isn't them preparing to do a 2.5p raise. That would send so many bad signals it's not funny compared to so many positive signals if they go the way I've suggested. We've kept the faith for long enough, it's now time for them to give us some faith. GLA

Tony, please read my last post on debt funded deal. To reply to your earlier post:

- 'Lets say they did take on £40,000,000 in additional debt - now we would have nearly £65,000,000 in debt !!! Who's now going to lend us another £30,000,000 to fund Simonette or any other large development?'

Why would we need to lend £30m for Simonette? Why not do a f/o? Why not use NOI but develop over longer period of time? Here's a thought, if they debt funded this deal our share price would be in the 20's (mcap near £200 - Graham's true value minus modest debt discount), and then we could do a relatively modest raise of say £15m (remember our mcap is near £200m at this point so less than 10% shares printed) and develop the wells with this and NOI. But they did it the other way round. Why?

-'We're now in the situation that we have relatively low debt - much better FCF and an increased capacity to take on debt to fund these large drilling projects'.

Yes you're correct here. But that would mean getting a debt facility or rbl sorted now - something you seem to think was impossible for them to do prior to this deal. It also doesn't help the share price versus doing it the other way does it i.e. debt now, raise later? We're now in the mid 11's rather than the 20's. Many less shares need to be printed in the 20's for another deal like this one. But it would mean the IIs get less ownership of the company doing it this way i.e. the 'right way'.

- 'We were nearly bankrupt 12-18 months ago - we are no on the cusp of nearly 18,000 boepd and sure to close the year out at above 20,000 and a realistic prospect of being at 30,000 or more (who knows) within a few years - and Management are untrustworthy ???'

Not sure what this has to do with them having done the deal the 'right way' i.e. not giving up so much ownership to IIs. I know you don't want to see it, but you, me, JAdam - we got f@cked by this 'great deal'. And we're back to waiting for the hockey stick re-rate to 20p in many months time, which still won't get us as far as if they did it the other way. It's why I keep asking you if they do it again in 12 months when we finally get to 20p, and they print another 500m shares and again hand them to IIs at say 15p, what will you think of them then? Remember they get their shares as well.

Thankyou freshair, you've summed things up very well.

Justfencing, on your debt question, I was referring to our 'true value' versus peers and illustrating that if you use NOI or fcf multiples we still had room for growth, plus we had far less debt i.e. we should be given a premium to peer multiples. I'm never against debt providing it's good debt. I'll try to explain as simply as possible...

Graham has communicated our true value is 21p, which is roughly what I'd equate post deal. This would indicate a mkt cap of circa £230m (with 1.1bn shares). Now if the deal was done with debt the underlying value of the business would be roughly the same, except we'd have a modest amount of debt for our financials i.e. 'good debt'. Let's say we reduce our 'true value' of our business by £30m to account for this 'good debt'. So mkt value of circa £200m, but off 725m shares. This indicates a share price of 27.5p. The reason is our value has greatly increased with no extra shares holding back the share price. And the debt is relatively modest versus our annual NOI so easily managed and the 'penalty' to our market value will therefore also be modest. So why is the share price at 11.5p if our true value is 21p (£230m mcap)? Because they printed a **** ton of shares and gave it to IIs. The market knows the value is there, but it will take time for it to re-rate because of the profit taking along the way. It's easy for an II to over-commit in the raise as they'll sell the extra 10's millions of shares for a profit as the share price tries to re-rate. But it will take time because 360m shares have been printed and given to them. 360m!!!

Now think about what happens with the f/o for us now. Let's say it was worth 5p of value pre 360m shares being added (so £36m to our mcap), but this is decreased and dampened by the extra 50% shares (so 3.5p of value) and you have profit taking IIs who are reducing to their ideal shareholding in the jump. So easy money for their over commitment in the raise right? But if we had used debt the full value of the deal plus the f/o would take us into the mid 20's and perhaps even higher. This is because we don't have an extra 360m shares with profit taking IIs holding us back. This is what normally happens when 'good debt' is taken on compared to a massive raise that has been heavily discounted versus post deal 'true value'. That is to say your share price goes up to true value minus modest debt discount, and not down to the raise price.

We could have $80m NOI easily handling £60m total debt. Add the f/o and we're +25p in a flash. Instead we'll be 11-12p and the f/o will boost us before we're pulled back by profit taking IIs picking up 20-40% on the initial jump until they have deleveraged their holding. Hence why I say the bod f@cked lths with substantial holdings.

justfencing why are things so hard for you to understand. Firstly I haven't gotten out - I hold 3.75m shares. For the last f'ing time I traded 250k i.e. sold higher than I re-bought so made some money as well. I was very open about this as integrity and honesty is important to me as you may be able to tell from my posts.

Now please try to get your head around my response to Tony's question on why I'd buy more. I said a few heads would explode trying to understand this, you're clearly one of these people, but it's really not that hard to grasp. And guess what, I'll be doing my best to trade the inevitable ups and downs over the coming months. Why ups and downs you ask and not a re-rate to 21p (Graham's underlying value)? Well we now have 50% more shares at 11p for starters (rather than the same amount with debt, which probably would have re-rated us to 21p). So we're now at the mercy of multiple IIs who only need to lean in one direction or the other in the slightest way for the share price to lurch by large margins. If just one II has overcommitted on the raise in order to make a quick 10-20% then we'll be bouncing back to 12p until they've decreased their holding to a certain comfort level. I'm betting at least one II is in this position. So there will be a reasonable amount of shares being offloaded by the IIs into news. And there will be PIs like me who believe this will happen and will trade shares into strength / spikes, especially those that are close to the 360m share issue date. This will happen until traders feel the II over-hang has been cleared. Either way I see us down here for at least month or two. The f/o will help to flush through shares and the perfect opportunity for over-exposed IIs to make their quick buck whilst maintaining a core holding for the divi and value growth to come. So we may spike to 16p then fall back to a higher base at say 13p before we continue to slowly climb as the over-hang is churned. It's also why I'm betting the f/o will drop in the weeks following the share issuance, and not the coming weeks. Some will say 'coincidence', i'll be saying 'maybe'. But the overall net result will be positive at least (just not as positive as it could have been with debt).

As far as I"m concerned the bod have played their hand. I'm not happy about it, as it could have been better for us. But there's a sensible response to it if you're a lth PI with a large holding. Try to retain your % of shares in issue by buying more and then trade a proportion for the ups and downs to come. The big problem for me, Tony, JAdam etc is we now need to add 50% more shares if we want the same upsides as the IIs from this level. I do ok, but I don't have £200k that I can pluck from places all that easily. Plus I'd rather not be so exposed to a single company, no matter how great their long-term prospects from current share price. Now do you understand why I'll add and trade?

(cont).
5. This something I doubt some on here will ever be able to wrap their heads around. As I've said it's a very good deal. It's very, very good for IIs, as they get to add a lot of new money at 11p for a company with an underlying value of 21p (Graham's words). So they should get stable capital appreciation over time to 21p (from their new money @11p plus their old money @5.5p), plus a 20-30% fcf based income (divi), such is the strength of our balance sheet backed by a sensible hedging program. But I don't get the same capital appreciation for my pf unless I invest more money at / near what they received in the raise (11p). Only this way do I get to enjoy the benefits of being an II. This is pretty straightforward and I'd have thought you'd see it immediately. As a lth with large holding you should at least be considering the same strategy. Why do you think I threw so much money at it last time? If I want to get the same capital appreciation and income equivalence post deal I need to add 50% more shares. If I don't the proportional increase to my investment is less i.e. I receive less % appreciation on my original 3.75m shares. This of course would be different if they had debt funded it. But they didn't, and even with our very strong balance sheet they didn't have debt arranged pre-acquisition. This says to me they were only ever going to fund via significantly discounted placing (to underlying value) with the IIs. Reckon if they do it again you'll clearly see what I'm saying, but that will be a lot of times they've looked after the IIs and not us.

The above answer is what I've said previously when posters throw out that stupid question 'why not sell up'? Firstly that would be f'ing stupid wouldn't it - after they've crashed the sp. Selling at 11p on rage. I know the sp is going up over time, it's just I need to get on II terms to get the full benefit of this deal. It's a pretty straightforward investment strategy from here, but I need to plough in another £200k near 11p if I want the full benefits. IIs just get it given to them. So the only sensible thing to do is to try and add 50% more shares near 11p. If I can do this then I'd still be p!ssed off as I needn't have been over-exposed to i3e had they used debt, but at least my wealth generation is on the same terms as the f'ing IIs. Please tell me you understand this.

Tony it's clear you're either not reading, or understanding, most of what I've been saying in my posts. You're also not answering a lot of my questions. I'm starting to think you're simply refusing to think a certain way, why I have no idea. I'll answer your contentions and remind you of the questions you're yet to answer.

1. You also don't know if the IIs said no to debt, or if they were even asked wrt to debt for the acquisition. But you still haven't answered why a debt facility couldn't have been arranged pre-acquisition, or would that have been impossible as well? We all know the reserves, production and NOI levels pre-acquisition. An incredibly strong balance sheet for such a small loan. And if a debt facility or rbl was impossible to arrange then you must think it's still impossible to arrange one now with the additional reserves and NOI they'e quoting...? I asked previously - At what point of dilution to IIs would it take you sit back and say - yes another very good deal, very very good for IIs, very good for mgt, but not so good for me, not sure about the bod now? And why still no debt? Think of my example - we're at 20p and they do another raise funded only acquisition and double the share count @14p and hand them only to IIs. You still happy? They still had no other way...?
2. Of course it's prudent. If such a great deal couldn't self-finance the debt then how good a deal is it? The only difference with the IIs giving us a loan versus us giving them shares is they make a lot more money. Their risk would be the same. I just happen to think the bod are that far up the @sses of their II mates they hand them cheap shares on the raise, and the IIs back them for their easy options. PIs get taken along for the ride but always making less than the IIs and bod. It's not a matter of whether we make money, it's a matter of us being treated as second class shareholders.
3. Seriously? We had an underlying value of 15p but the sp was struggling to break 7p for ages - why? Because a massive, heavily discounted raise (versus underlying value) at 5.5p. I don't blame the bod for this. The company either survived or not, so they had to take the deal being offered by the IIs. But on this occasion it's not the case. And to answer q1, yes they could have already negotiated a debt facility / rbl based on our current production, NOI etc. You ask why it was a **** deal? Look at the share price. It's the same thing - a massive, heavily discounted raise (versus underlying value) handed to IIs. Remember Graham was saying we should be valued at 21p (full diluted), well it's no difference to how we should have been valued at 15p for so long. The handout to the IIs is what kept us back, alongside PIs feeling shafted (you were one of them).
4. Bull**** Tony. You me, and just about every lth here has questioned the bod's integrity on many occasions. We also freely admitted it was their questionable integrity and trust that was holding back the share price.

Just can't help myself :) Tony, I take it you're referring to me going 'too far' by questioning the integrity of the bod? Fine but I don't believe it's going too far. In the same way as I didn't feel you went too far questioning their integrity on a number of occasions in the past. They've deserved it on a number of occasions and imo they deserve it again. We can of course agree to disagree on this, but I'd still like you to answer a number of my questions directed to you from the past couple of days. They're especially relevant given the new options terms. I'd like to know your thoughts on the following:

- Do you believe it was impossible for them to have a debt facility already arranged given they have been looking to make an acquisition for some time now? I know the answer is of course they could have a debt facility in the same way as hundreds of companies with strong balance sheets who are looking to expand their business have done this. But please let me know if you believe it was possible, and if so why haven't they done it?
- Let's assume they could have arranged an existing debt facility on current production / financials, or one linked to this acquisition, what would be the sp in your opinion if they part funded the acquisition thought debt, say 50%? And what would be the sp in your opinion if they fully funded the acquisition thought debt?
- Interesting to note previous options are linked mainly to production. And here again now. I agree with fairdealer they're hardly 'performance options' and they may as well just award them now. But let's say the performance options were linked to the share price reaching 18p - do you think debt would / could have been part of this acquisition under those circumstances?
- Given their next set of options are simply awarded on the back of modest production or reserve increases (not share price target), how would you feel about them doing another massive raise in future (heavily discounted v underlying value like now) and handing it straight to the IIs (again)? Would you keep arguing it was the only route available and not their intention to line the pockets of IIs? And again they still didn't have time to arrange a debt facility on the now almost 20kboepd production levels and $80m NOI? To make this easier let's assume the share price in 9 months has just broken 20p on the back of another of their PR drives, and they double the share count and hand it all to IIs at 14p for another 100% raise funded acquisition. Let's also assume it's an excellent deal, like this time. Please also keep in mind their options would again be executed on this raise funded acquisition (like now). And let's say they don't participate in the raise (again).
- At what point of dilution to IIs would it take you sit back and say - yes a very good deal, very very good for IIs, very good for mgt, but not so good for me, not sure about the bod now? And why still no debt?
- Thoughts on trust levels now - helping or hindering s

'GGGOD ITS BORING NOW - next time just bank it and leave!'
I see what you've done there justfencing, without doubt the cleverest thing you've said on here.

'Most people are just scrolling straight through your comments M8. Time to step back'
You didn't bots. But you're right it's time to step back. I've had my moan and then my fun. I'll keep you updated from time to time when trading my position - I tend to disclose stuff like that - It's one of those integrity things.

Have a good w/e all. Hope some of you have at least opened your mind to what has happened and why the sp is where it is (and will likely be for a little while longer). Great for newbies and a great long term hold. To the lths, it sucks but let's see what happens on the next acquisition and whether the bod possess any integrity at all. I'm actually interested now to find out. GLA

Haha Bots the investor. Sorry where did you come from again? Are you one of those really lths that no-one remembers? It's going to be a traders paradise for the next couple of months Bots so you'll have to get used to them turning up (like you did).

Micky, we can agree to disagree on whether they could have accessed debt on existing or existing plus new production. I say it would have been easy because they've done it before with the same IIs with no production or revenue. As you've stated we're not generating $80m NOI.

One thing I'm hoping, which is linked to a question to Tony and addresses your question, is they do another transaction similar to this but fully debt funded supported by the now 20kbopd production (plus acquisition production). This will more than make up for what they've done here and the sp will take a big step up. As you've stated they're now making a lot more NOI so this should help them secure a debt facility (now) for the future. If they do a raise like this again for an acquisition, to the same degree, then yes they're effectively handing it over to IIs. I can't see how anyone could argue this point.

Imo deals like this should be settled with debt. After all, if they're a good deal then it should be easy to pay off the debt with the added production / revenue. If concerned about macro factors, then hedge enough of production to cover the debt commitments. It's a small amount in the greater scheme of things. To my mind what's left over (NOI) should be put to work by drilling the best Canadian prospects. Imagine another deal of this size adding 8-10kbopd and costing £40-50m. You'd have circa $120m NOI, 25-30kbopd and £50-60m total debt. Easy to pay off the debt. Easy to continue drilling out acreage. Easy to pay divis. But if they do a raise like this again then in my books they're everything I've said and more.

On Serenity I don't think increased NOI will factor in current negotiations. They've already done the deal - It was with lawyers months ago. It will however allow them to secure a decent sized debt facility for future acquisitions on good terms though :)

Tony, I cant be any clearer in what I'm saying - it was a great deal but structured badly for PIs (not IIs). And yes I can use the share price as evidence of this. What would be irrational is the share price appreciating on the back of how this deal has been structured. Or are you surprised that we lost 30% of our value on the back of this deal and now sitting in the 11's? You also haven't answered my questions on what the share price would be if they debt funded 50% or 100% of the acquisition? And what sort of jump do you think we'll get on the back of the f/o news now, versus if we had a degree of debt funding?

Regarding debt packages, it's tiny compared to 10kboepd existing production, not to mention what happens with new production. Or are you now saying they were in no position to negotiate a debt facility on 10kbopd existing production? Remember we're paying a 20-30% fcf dividend. And we've gotten debt from these IIs when we were a high risk explorer. Point being it's now obvious they were always going to do a raise and hand it to the IIs, which is probably some agreement they made after the last raise, rather than going down the debt route. This links to questions to you from my previous post - If they do another massive raise in future (heavily discounted v underlying value) and hand it straight to the IIs, are you going to keep arguing it was the only route available and not their intention to line the pockets of IIs? Exactly what point of needless dilution to IIs before you sit back and say - yes a very good deal, very good for II wealth creation, very good for mgt, but not so good for me. Hmm, not so sure about these great deals and the bod now? The structure of the deal is great for IIs and not us. Actually it's great for newbies as well.

'Could not leave this unanswered as i find it dreogatory'

Jolly everything we've been posting to one another has been 'derogatory' (I'm sure it was just a typo by the way). Anyway I'm glad you and your companies can get loans though, as it would truly limit the growth of your companies if you couldn't access 'good debt'. Well done. Also, there were a few more derogatory comments in my last post in case you want to come back just one more time :)

There you go jolly. About as clever a retort as I could have expected from you. You're right, it's best if we don't continue this any more. Although it's fun and you're very entertaining.

Cletus, another brilliant post. Well done.

Solo, why even ask the question? Have you been reading these posts? It's a good deal and will create sp appreciation over a longer period of time, but not to the same degree or as quickly for PIs. So why would I sell now when maximum damage has been done to the sp? Wouldn't be too clever would it? Hopefully this will help you next time a p!ssed off shareholder is rightly pointing out how a bod needlessly destroyed his wealth and ultimate wealth generation (but not IIs or theirs) in a 'great deal'. That way you don't need to come back with the throwaway 'why don't you sell up then'?

The only sensible thing to do now is to add to my position in the 11's & 12's (I'll have plenty of time to do this), and then trade off a higher base number of shares. I'll pay a small premium to the IIs, but will get a similar return to them on my new money as the sp appreciates more slowly and less sharply over time. I hopefully make a bit more money by trading the spikes and buying back for the extra 5-10%, which is a bit risky but I intend to always keep a few million unsold. Bottom line I still make money at a similar rate to the IIs, but the f@ckers could have made all of us a lot more, and a lot more quickly, if they did it the right way through debt funding rather than giving it away to IIs.

I'm actually laughing now thinking about Jolly and Cletus heads exploding when they read 'he's going to buy more and then trade'.

Jolly wtf has clns being common on Aim got to do with us raising debt? Are you familiar with our financials before this acquisition? I'll give you a helping hand, we weren't, and aren't the sort of Aim company that would ever need clns.

'Clearly you don't get out much or have any finance knowledge or been involved in trying to obtain loans with minimal income and limited surety and clearly clueless about the timescales it would take'

Again are we talking about the same company? Are we talking about a £20-40m loan amount? These things considered, limited income (wtf regardless of whether you're talking pre or post deal), limited surety (seriously wtf), timescales (you're still talking about this made up last minute take it or leave it acquisition). And clearly you don't know how debt can be very good and very bad from my last post.

You just don't get it. You've dropped in on / around the recent raise price and looking at obvious growth. But you have no idea of what the growth could be if done differently. I know this because of what I do (I'll give you a hint it involves some of that financial knowledge that you think I lack). You talk of experience raising money and securing loans. Are you finding it hard to get your head around this because the bank knocked you back on your credit card application recently? Sorry I forgot you run a few companies don't you. Appreciate if you can list them here so I can short them (although the chances of them ever being listed are about as high as you getting your head around good v bad debt). Now go and take your afternoon nap little tiger :)

Tony, you're talking about how good the deal is again. As I've said a hundred times, it was a very good deal. We're arguing over the structure of it, and how PIs have been shafted (needlessly). This is the argument. And our sp being in the 11's supports what I'm saying. Out of interest what do you think the sp would be with 50% debt funding? And 100% debt funding? And how long do you think it will take after this 360m share raise before we reach Graham's 21p? How do you think trust levels are at the moment - Working for or against share price appreciation?

As for our sp being 8p or 11p or 15p when they spoke with the IIs, it makes no difference if you're securing debt against existing assets and income. Obviously additional assets / income would make it even easier if mgt haven't already negotiated a debt facility (i.e. for the acquisitions they have been talking about for a year). Ultimately they could have pulled together a debt facility on what we had for future acquisitions, or access debt on what we had and are buying. Either way they could have accessed debt, which is peanuts in the greater scheme of things, regardless of whether it was for a last minute, take it or leave it, fire sale or not.

As for the best route available. Clearly wasn't the best route available, which you have at least acknowledged. And yes it was the best route for the IIs, so yes it was lining their pockets (again). I'm actually wondering when the bod is going to take out some debt, when they've always been in a position to do so, and even more so now. Tell me, if they do another massive raise (heavily discounted v underlying value) and hand it straight to the IIs, are you going to keep arguing it was the only route available and not their intention to line the pockets of IIs? Exactly what point of dilution to IIs are you going to sit back and say - yes a very good deal, very good for II wealth creation, very good for mgt, but not so good for me. Hmm, not sure about the bod now?