Ann: Invalid Section 249D Notice, page-50

I am not sure what you are on about. I think it is embarrassing the BOD is where it is - a technicality, but I guess it would be interesting to find out what the reason is. If you want to debate incompetence all you need to do is look at the current BOD and all the inflated bulldust they wrote in their Anns over the last few years, such as the OHD ones and what was said about Morabisi before the drill results for both REE and Turesi said no way you are correct, which I hope the incoming MD is going to have a good look at and update the market accordingly on past shenanigans.

One thing you haven't commented on - the proposed acquisition is in effect a reverse takeover and the GPP BOD will now have two new incoming directors from the other company. One is a Managing Director who will run the company. So the way the current BOD stands is 2 former GPP and 2 new Directors, with one of the new Directors been an MD.

My point I guess for the forum is do you think the two additions are skillful enough to bring GPP forward because I think they are the two running the company going forward, not GK btw (especially as they get their share allocation under the 3 phases).

The other thing of interest is when GPP said they would do a corporate review a month or so back, I just wonder whether they knew this was coming.

The real question for those doing the Section 249D is are they happy enough with the new additions on the BOD to withdraw the 249D? The other questions I have is the secrecy of the deal, when did negotiations commence and if any link to the previous CR, and it is not clear the strategy going forward, particularly around OHD.

I know some are concerned about dilution but I will say one thing, the dilution in this reverse takeover (because that is what in effect it is too me) is significantly less than what happens when a company delists, becomes a shell and then relistsagain (just look at PNA when it became CAI and see what happened to SH there - 300 PNA shares became one share in CAI). In assessing whether you agree with this in effect reverse takeover, a question for the forum is what chance did you think there was of the Section 249D succeeding and/or if it did succeed the timeframe to when, and GPP's heartbeat at that time.

It is a dilema I recognise, but IMO without management accepting the will of SH to ride off into the sunset and be replaced as a consequence of a successful Section 249D, SHhere would have copped a subsequent PNA style scenario, so this 'reverse takeover' scenario might be ok but it does boil down to what you think of the two additions? I am sitting on the fence because it is not clear too me.

My main concern with the deal is if the new Directors really wanted to list as an entity (the reverse takeover) the cash payments as part of the 3 phases of this ineffect reverse takeover (not the shares btw) should have not been part of the deal (i.e. the shares yes). That shows too me more a concern around is the reverse takeover more about 'lifestyle' rather than 'development' given the need for CRs in future and a resulting share consolidation here. If this is genuine new management, then I hope the new management find some nice cobalt raising the SP before the CR and subsequent consolidation.

Suspect Morabisi/Kopang dead, OHD is either up for sale or deferred and under the reverse takeover cobalt to be pursued. Before you give yourself another gold star I would go back and read the threads again - a few of us said the next pursuit would be cobalt btw (i.e. the surprise it is in Australia, and around the same area as AUZ's Sconi project).

Finally, one thing about GPP they don't disappoint LOL - give out potentially, note I use the word potentially, good news in the morning and SP lifts to then give the punch in the head after trading closes (grant application failed) so suspect GPP might deflate today IMO.

Anyway, real question for the forum: What do you think of the two additions to the BOD? Because GPP is on life support now and whether it is switched of depends on these two additions, unless a Section 249D is relodged and is successful and then that will depend what they Section 249D lodges decide to do with the company.

Sitting on the fence with splinters.

All IMO IMO IMO IMO IMO