Ann: Annual Report to shareholders, page-17

I think the letter of intent you refer to for the ball mill with Citic could be classed as an MoU – so we won’t split hairs on that. (http://www.mutinygold.com.au/images...first_Deflector_Project_ball_mill_WEBSITE.pdf). Although it did result in the initial design work required to put a comprehensive processing plan together which I believe is still relevant today.  

Your question was “ Is this another rubbery timeline same as the ones that started in 2010?”. If it’s a rhetorical question then I am an idiot for attempting to engage you.
You didn’t ask “ Is this project running 5 years behind schedule?”. I cannot tell if the current timeline is rubbery but I am waiting to see what transpires.

My belief is that you can’t just spend money on critical path items like a ball mill without long term funding being in place. The operating costs are primarily on securing funding, redefining the mine plan and additional drilling that has the potential to increase the indicated resource. You can only do so much before you have to drop the $70m needed to start up. We’ve been in that place for the last 3 years.

How many other gold hopefuls have received finance in the last 2 years? I really have no idea. But I do have a feeling there aren’t many in Australia with the AISC costs as low as MYG. That might actually be worth something meaningful to a financier.

You are entitled to your opinion on whether there is a legacy building agenda going on or not, however it is factually incorrect to state that drill results do not show any further extension. I would caution against making such accusations however it is up to you how you wish to express your views. You can show contempt for the company, the management (past and present) and my views if you wish but the bitterness of your experience - I believe -  doesn’t justify running down the investment I (and other shareholder have) have in the company.