RE: Are we27 Sep 2022 12:33
Hi anon...
I'm on a private feed at Twitter, where someobody posted definitive evidence of what was stated below.
Of course it isn't fact as far as I'm concerned, but the cashbox was as good as confirmed by Darryl; there was the Berry Street letter; the AFR article(s); and I remember a posted picture I saw which was headed 'Refinitive' if I remember correctly.
But in any case, what I posted below makes total sense.
We know Barrenjoey led an ettempted funding and BHP and NCM were upset because after the previous cashbox, SOLG said it was a 'one off'.
So then you say how else could they raise funds. Of course another royalty deal would have been a no brainer, but if the cashbox was unacceptable to BHP/NCM then a royalty deal would certainly have been after BHP's public criticism of the FNV deal and NCM withdrawing Craig Jones as Board Member as a result.
So that leaves only a rights issue, which of course BHP/NCM would have approved, but there was no cash raise and therefore my conclusion is that the Board vetoed it.
Ingo had been actinf CFO but more important was Corporate Funding Director, so would have worked with AS on possible funding.
Supposing they took a rights issue to the Board and it was vetoed, with no other solution.
If I had been CFO that would have gone to the core of my role.
So I accept this is all supposition, but as you know, I spend many hours a week researching and engaging with some well informed people.
Thats how I camt to the conclusion below.
Hope this helps...?