I’ve been reading this post with interest and feel that I have...

I’ve been reading this post with interest and feel that I have to respond to a number of inaccuracies that have been explicitly presented as ‘FACTS’ (uppercase used by Winning Post).

WINNING POST: “… Mackum8 states "Carabella shares were a fluke".This statement is simply naive and untrue.THE FACTS: Yes management bought tenements through a merchant banking group from Mr Byrt.With further investigation we found representations to be less than accurate.”

Actually I believe this was a stroke of luck. Wavenet bought certain tenements in the belief that they were valuable assets but this turned out not to be the case- in fact they were found to be misrepresented with drilling reports from a neighboring plot being advanced as evidence of the potential profitability of the land in question. In short Wavenet were taken for a ride. Mr. Terence Byrt agreed to compensate Wavenet to the tune of $2,570,000.00 by December 2009: this did not happen and the matter was resolved in the courts. Under the threat of legal action Mr. Byrt then agreed a payment date of November 2010. Again the deadline seems to have been missed and in December (2010) it was announced that a revised agreement had been arrived at in which Mr Byrt would pay Wavenet the sum of $1.18M and 11,141,550 ordinary shares in Carabella. 3,000,000 to be handed over to secure an extension and 8,141,550 (based on a valuation price at the time of $0.20).
In short Wavenet entered into a deal for some tenements, there was some irregularity and the vendor agreed to compensate the buyer to the tune of $2,570,000 - it should have ended there. For whatever reason this compensation did not materialize in a timely fashion and Mr Byrt agreed to make amends in the form of shares in the Carabella company (11,141,550 ordinary shares at the time valued at $0.20).
Unless Wavenet deliberately entered into the tenement deal knowing of the irregularity and in the belief that the company would ultimately be awarded shares in Carabella and that these same shares would subsequently far exceed the valuation arrived at as the result of a Supreme Court intervention at the time it must be assumed that this was in fact a stroke of luck and not a shrewd business deal. Any credit in this affair should be directed towards the lawyers and not the directors of the company who came up smelling of roses two and a half years after entering into the questionable project. To be fair the instigators of this work of genius had only been in their new jobs a few weeks when they embarked on their Queensland misadventure.

WINNING POST: “We settled that investment by taking 7M shares in Carabella pre float plus $1.2M in cash post float.”

Should in fact read 11,141,550 in shares and $1.18M in cash (see above).

WINNING POST: “Any experienced business person would tell you this is not a result that came from a fluke. This action took 14 months to achieve not 4 years as stated by muckum8.”

But two and a half years from purchase to resolution (July 2008 – January 2011)

WINNING POST: “The board independently purchased 8M Carabella shares from the then liquidator of Ansett Resources, pre float, for 15cents per share, out manoeuvring a number of large corporate groups in doing so.”

I think it was actually 5,000,000 shares you seem to have added the 3,000,000 from Mr Byrt which was clearly part of the court settlement and nonnegotiable. But well done on securing them, God knows what happened in those negotiations to get them for $0.15 with so much interest from the corporate concerns but it doesn’t reflect well on the liquidators - not that I have any sympathy with Mr. Byrt or Ansett Resources.

WINNING POST: “The final 7.8M shares were also bought by buying a secured debt from a 3rd party pre float. All these transactions took a great deal of calculated risk and a lot of sensitive and opportunistic negotions that ultimately rewarded our shareholders with around 23M Carabella Shares.An absolute game changer for your company.”

Surely it was 7.4M shares. A minor point but such details are important in my line of work.

Just a few more questions:

The $1.3M office looked very much like a five bedroom house when I viewed it on a realtor/estate agent’s website: did I get the right address? I’m quite prepared to accept that I made a mistake.

Who did Wavenet buy the vineyard from?

Why is the share price so far below the value of the assets? Why is there no trading in the stock? Why then aren’t the vultures circling?

And finally – and this is what compelled me to post – the following quote is by far the most concerning:

WINNING POST: “If shareholders are not happy with our performance then I would suggest they sell their shares and seek another investment. “

Is Mr Stroud seriously suggesting - in the same month as the AGM - that those shareholders who are not happy with the way the company is being run should sell their shares rather than exercise their right to voice their opinions or ultimately vote him off? Seems like a pretty un-Australian point of view to me. Perhaps he thinks that Australians who do not agree with Julia Gillard should emigrate. After all it’s not his company (or is it?).