Member Info for Ssccss

Well exactly arsenal. Roland wants the money for cambay so he can sit on his laurels, getting paid and not delivering anything for the next few years. Not acceptable

Sajad, in an ideal world, I may agree with you. However, syn have failed miserably over the last ten years to get anything done in India. Everything takes so long. I think cambay should be sold. Although, I'm not happy about the bargain basement price. Roland should be held accountable for his role in this abysmal JV agreement. I want nothing to do with CCS. At this point, I would just like my money back as Roland has not upheld his duty to the company or shareholders.

Agree quant

None of you are going to be able to get much back from this just be voting yes. It will be below a penny within the blink of an eye.

Why are you expecting TG to provide more information... I mean honestly... Why don't you try putting the same onus on ppp and SL. Your attitude is ridiculous. Where is the information from ppp about rmd and the proposed deal?

Thing is wolfman, no one will fund his CCS project, he can't find a partner. So he wants the money from cambay... It's not on. I invested based on the information he gave about the potential full field development of cambay.

Roland has failed in his duties to act in the interests of syn and it's shareholders.

What about the earlier suggestion of winding up and money returned to shareholders...

*convince

It just goes back to the same thing as last time... If SL wants us to vote yes, he needs to conceive us with information not threats. We need transparency. I highly doubt he can deliver that because he is crooked too. They all are. Need a new board.

Fine Kong... But I will still be voting no because SL hasn't actually given me enough information to vote yes. Where is the prospectus. What is this RMD deal? Who are they? There is no transparency so it's a no from me.

NU, you are the one most of us wish to be spared from... You are RELENTLESS with your innane drivel

What price are you all thinking of getting out at? There will be a stampede so good luck. No one will be buying. So to be honest doubt you will even get a quote...

It's probably to allow SL to take the 50% of nobel US. So basically, if we vote yes to this, he can do whatever he wants. That's just not acceptable in the scenario because he doesn't have my trust at all. He has a massive conflict of interest. So I will be voting no to that one and to re-electing him.

It is not standard practice hepran, it's taking away shareholders rights so that the deals can be done without a shareholder vote. Wake up. Honestly.

What is this? I don't think so.

THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 656 OF THE CA 2006, THE DIRECTORS ARE AUTHORISED TO TAKE ALL SUCH ACTIONS AND DO ALL SUCH THINGS AS THEY MAY CONSIDER NECESSARY (

I've just looked at my voting form (ii) and same issue as last time. It's only counting half my shares. I will have to call ii to vote. Please check yours carefully.

*SL not DL

So do we know if the agreement to give DL 50% of nobel US has been signed off or will we have the chance to vote on it?

Yeah, I was happy initially, until I realised the information hasn't been published anywhere. Can the fact he is published this RNS cause issues for the court case?