RE: ZIOC latest update: 6th May RNS and Presentation...12 May 2026 17:31
Thanks, but that still does not really define the objective. “There are lots of ways this could play out” and “whatever permutation delivers the best outcome” may be true, but it still leaves ordinary shareholders with no clear idea what outcome you are actually working towards.
Nobody is asking you to disclose anything genuinely sensitive. The question is whether the public campaign has a defined remedy, or whether it is simply designed to keep pressure on the company and counterparties.
- If the objective is full disclosure before any vote, say that.
- If the objective is an independent valuation, say that.
- If the objective is a renegotiated RAM deal, say that.
- If the objective is to block the deal unless certain conditions are met, say that.
- If the objective is regulatory intervention, say that.
At the moment, shareholders are being given a long list of alleged issues, but no clear description of what a successful resolution looks like.
That matters, because the public effect of this campaign appears to be uncertainty, suspicion and retail selling. If there is a constructive endgame, it would help to define it in broad terms.
“Mushrooms seeking sunlight” is a nice phrase, but shareholders need more than metaphors. They need to know whether this is a campaign for transparency, a campaign for renegotiation, or a campaign to derail the current transaction altogether. Because if the objective is not clearly defined, then the public effect risks becoming more of the same FUD - more uncertainty, more suspicion, and more pressure on already nervous retail holders.
Let's fae it the original RAM deal may already be poor enough from a shareholder perspective. My conern is that an undefined campaign of constant negativity, without a clear remedy, could end up adding fuel to the fire rather than improving the outcome.