G'day Towie. We are 8 days away from the next QR, which, if it is in compliance with the Continuous Disclosure eules, should contain nothing of any material nature. Let's see.
But, my point re the actual land owners settlement is to indicate that what you would think should be the most difficult settlement, i.e. mining was actually damaging THEIR land and also inhibited their use of their own land, and they rightfully deserved a reasonable COMPENSATION.
But, that one IS settled.
The TO's have stated that they do not have any sacred sites at risk, nor any environmental issues. Where is their need for COMPENSATION?
And, just my view is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that they upped their claim because of the settlement given to the Terrys. We have no idea what they want to sign that agreement. Agreement for what? LNY won't be employing anyone at the mine, nor will they have anything requiring training, maybe, how to run a gold exploration company from an office in Brisbane??
We will agree that we would not be having these types of guess work discussions if management had simply complied with their legal obligations re disclosure. THAT is my genuine gripe, not the "process " not the TOs, just OUR employees treating us with absolute disdain and nothing being done about it.
So much for shareholder rights, so much for Rules.
LNY Price at posting:
0.4¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
