Rattle, all you did was refer to their latest announcement which...

Rattle, all you did was refer to their latest announcement which says they can go to 90%. You did not address any of the points I made. Of course they're going to tell you what they want you to believe. They seem to think if they repeat something enough times it becomes true. It seems to be working on you.

My point is simple:

The original deal, based on the ASX announcements, says they can go to 80%. Two groups would hold 10% each being the Mexican vendors and probably the guys that put the deal together. Nobody can argue this; it's there for all to see.

Somewhere along the way they have decided that they do not need to give this 10% to the people that found the deal. This is also unarguable.

So when did the deal change? What was the consideration? Or did they just agree not to take their 10% because they're nice guys? (I can assure you they're not).

I seriously struggle to see how you don't understand this, or perhaps you do and choose to ignore it. Don't cry when they get sued and the thing goes back under 1c.

Exactly the same applies to the 10% being non contributing until completion of BFS. At some stage they have just started saying something different because it looks better. 

If they have deliberately manipulated the price upwards in order to issue less shares to the Mexican vendors do you think there's a possibility that the Mexican's might sue? Do you think the Mexican's really don't know what's being mined in their own mine??

This thing is a train crash waiting to happen.