At the AGM presentation, Nick mentioned that ASI/Ailvergate had...

At the AGM presentation, Nick mentioned that ASI/Ailvergate had been offered two seats. If they accepted those two seats, then the board would comprise of one company/exec director (Nick), three independant directors (Bob Hair, Neil Williams and Paul Cholakos) and three shareholder representatives (one Conglin and two ASI/Silvergate).

To me, that is a balanced board and I would be comfortable with that.

If ASI/Silvergate want other directors removed, then I'd like to better understand their motivations for doing so and am unlikely to support such a vote. It will however be interesting to see if Conglin votes in support of ASI/Ailvergate. If ASI/Silvergate want removal of two directors and vote with Conglin, then they could out vote Nick and remaining independent director.

What's the worst case scenario, ASI/Silvergate gets control and issues new shares effectively diluting current shareholders percentage interest in Hawsons etc. Please don't forget that under the JV agreement, CAP was only going to get 20% of Hawsons - which in effect would have been 80% dilution in any event.

If we got diluted by 80% the initial reaction is that's bad. But if we got diluted by 80% and had a mine producing 20Mtpa at a margin of $20/t, then that's $400M per annum profit and the current shareholders 20% of that equals $80M per annum - and that would be a good outcome in my view.

If the possible options are any of new JV Partner, out right take over offer, or future dilution and a producing mine, then all three options appear positive to me.