Member Info for Teacup64

Castaway - There is a legal maximum that APs share of the assets will be worth. Given options, the share price could rally on a stream of good news, and he could potentially exercise them at a price far higher than the legal maximum of his assets....its that additional potential value that I am arguing deserves to be shared amongst the shareholders.

Pectan - I somewhat agree, but the certainty that can be avoided is dilution, and it only takes a vote against to stop it, the price and value become irrelevantant, unless he undervalued his asset, which to be fair, is highly unlikely....which is why I so persistently want to start a motion to end the vote full stop. I'm not trying to attack the company, which is why I haven't used the usual tactics of a deramper by referring to prices, or rainbow chasing etc....I just want to see that my brothers stock value rises without options being created.

Hi Dodge, Yes that is correct, but here is an example I gave earlier.... Let's suppose we grant AP authorisation, which he chooses to exercise(with greater knowledge than anyone concerning the company), and let's suppose that we later hit the jackpot in Zimbabwe, why should he then be able to make a calculated decision to dilute us in order to jump into the winners seat as VAST stock rallies? .....but if none of our assets perform and our SP plummets, AP can instead chose not to exercise his options relying on his 10% share of his particular assets. Why doesn't he agree to convert them instantly on authorisation, instead of creating options that allow him to choose whether Vast stocks is later worth more than his asset share would otherwise have been worth. It's us paying the price, he will only gain unnecessarily.

Pectan - Lol, "something factual to talk about". Fact: AP has already stated that options will be created on authorisation. This will certainly increase the shares in circulation. Please stop doinh a 'SandyShore' by ignoring the facts you claim to want to talk about. A photo of a parked rig is as factual as my concern. Stop dismissing the choice you have to put an end to the creation of more shares by voting no. Letting AP dilute us when he doesn't need to is just plain madness....he already has 10%, what more do you want to give him?

Pectan - Using the base 10% I described earlier, that is the legal maximum at the current time, it has already been agreed. He has made very clear that options are what will be proposed. That is the issue, nothing else. Options mean dilution, which I'd prefer to avoid by voting no. By all means, let the negotiations continue in regards to what his 10% actually means in respect to his assets, but let's do it without the need for options being created.

Sandy - If I were a deramper, at 2% up all day, I would argue that I was shit at being one!

Teacup - in regards to your point about converting to shares rather than options at the point of authorisation I’m not sure there is really much difference for us shareholders as long as he retains no stake in the assets and the value is fixed i.e. number of shares or options ORT - I think you missed my point, I meant we should negotiate a deal with his 10% without creating options or shares, meaning revenue or profit share equal to his 10% base value. Sandy - Apart from avoiding answering my questions, it appears that everyone else is currently debating the point....something you said you were happy to do until I responded. Now you resort to not answering me, calling me a deramper, and accusing me of clogging the board up. What do you want to talk about then? How vast could be a $500m company, how we BP could be a blinder, how vast could be digging diamonds left Right and center? This non rampy debate may be considered boring by yourself, but it is not an invalid question. Now, if you want to grow up a bit and join the debate, feel free.

Ummm...try reading the pretext in the last RNS, it makes it very clear that options are what's being proposed. It doesn't say anything about values, or about timeframes, but as per his legal 10% as it stands, we must assume that it is equal to 10% of the minerals, whether that's in cash or otherwise, and without costs deducted. That is the maximum that his 10% can currently be worth and I can't imagine he will do it for less, but if he does, he will be considered a legend. But given the base 10%, I do not want to see options created as he has enough. Remember, without VAST, his 10% share could be worth nothing.

Welshie - I agree with the lack of details part, but to be fair, that applies to details concerning everything across the entire company. Although this is baseless, I would be happy for AP to take 10% of any material found on his assets, deduction for the cost of production could also be considered in any deal. But I still don't think that options are good for shareholders when there is already a legal consideration for his current 10%. Let's negotiate terms on the 10% without options being granted instead, a non dilutive agreement if you like.

Sandy - Are you resorting to insults because you deem this a touchy subject and hits a spot? My brother is actually quite happy with his investment, he bought at 0.18....far better than most here I can assure you. He has a genuine concern, one you appear to be avoiding....besides, didn't you say that you didn't have time to go into detail...but still found time to insult me too without answering the concerns?

Welshie, "Yes, but you said we get less through dilution, which is not the case. We can only go by what's in the public domain and that is AP want's to align himself with the shareholders by converting his % in to top company shares. We are not getting nothing for dilution. What would go badly for VAST? If the assets go badly for VAST then they will go badly for AP as he has a % of the same assets. He would actually be more inclined to want VAST shares in that case as they are more liquid than holding a % of those assets" Let's suppose we grant AP authorisation, which he chooses to exercise(with greater knowledge than anyone concerning the company), and let's suppose that we later hit the jackpot in Zimbabwe, why should he then be able to make a calculated decision to dilute us in order to jump into the winners seat as VAST stock rallies? .....but if none of our assets perform and our SP plummets, AP can instead chose not to exercise his options relying on his 10% share of his particular assets. Why doesn't he agree to convert them instantly on authorisation, instead of creating options....although the full details have not been given, the pretext is clear.

Itching to get a lower price? ...My brother, who is currently holding a lot of vast shares is watching this bulletin board from work, hoping that people recognise this issue, without me bringing the board into disrepute. Trust me, I am trying to be as sensitive as I can possibly be, hence why I am not ****ging the company off, and focussing on only that vote. It's a discussion my brother wants that was mentioned last week, but was again ignored. It's top of the board because people keep challenging the points I raise with brush offs.

Ignore that, I though you said "dont", lol. It's a debate, where opinions can be changed....perhaps I'm missing something that needs explaining, perhaps not? It's seems a few are disregarding, of not believing, that dilution will take place if we grant AP authorisation. It appears they are willing to change previous terms to their detriment, excusing such practices as a Bosses reward. All I was intending to do, is make people aware so they are able to make an informed decision when the day does come....with the view of blocking that particular resolution.

Sandy -,What do you mean I don't seem to have made up my mind? My thoughts are very clear.

Pectan - We don't have details on the vast majority of our assets, Romanian and Zimbabwean....but everyone still wants to talk about them? ....we still don't have details from Q3! Please refer to my earlier post.

Regarding 1 & 3 -,We will have to agree to disagree. With 2...The deal has already been made between AP and Vast concerning the assets in question, he also took a salary in the company with those conditions in mind. Why let him change the terms of the agreement now at our expense? ....if he pulls out then there will be a huge conflict of interest as he's our CEO.

Pectan - We know he has his right to 10%. If and when he chooses to exercise his options, given the state and prospect and general outlook of the company, he is able to increase his 10% by diluting us for price rallying shares, if that indeed is the case.

Welshie - Yes we do get diluted if he exercises his options. If it goes badly for VAST, he won't bother, if it's good you can be certain he will because it's beneficial to him.

Hi Sandy, "1) You say (I think) Zagra 10% and assume (I think) 10% across the board. I think actually it's much more varied across assets. Are you just extrapolating on a quick look in from Zagra?" I don't mean 10% across the board, but across several assets. However, if the options are converted to shares in VAST, it will then certainly be across the value of all assets. "2) How do you imagine Vast pays for the assets it acquires? Land is property, etc. Who do you imagine owns what?" ...Not really catching what your saying or asking there, or the point your trying to make I'm afraid? "3) What proportion of the value of the company do you think is due to the personal efforts of Andrew Prelea. Do you think he's a passably decent functionary of no great personal merit who is easily replaced by an advert in the local county paper, or do you think he's a guy who has built this company's present value and future potential to a very great extent?" I think he is worth his salary, and the 10% he owns on certain assets. I even agree that a salary that's incremental and inline with the SP is the way forward, as mentioned by torchy. I do not however believe he should be granted authorisation for diluting us to allow himself to have more using options....it defeats the purpose of our why we invest, and why we spend our time chasing the rewards.

Agreed, that's why he has shares, and an additional 10% from his assets. Why should we get less through dilution, so that he can take more than his fair share. It's ours, not his....unless he gets his way!

Your second paragraph I agree with, but that's not what is being proposed.