RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:About Frank's resignationborisY wrote: I'm still distrurbed by Halcro's take that current holders are most likely to end up with zero percent of the BGM assets down the road. That would be shocking IMO but Halcro does have a good depth of experience at reading the financials and these days it is about the finanicials as much as anything -- a company has to live long enough for the price of gold to turn to capitalize on future gold price rise opportunities.
imo, some have been extremely generous with sprott's money and, if he hasn't willingly given the specific go-ahead for the way it's been used, then he certainly hasn't been quoted in news releases as objecting (a la rex harbour, back in 2012).
sprott's gold loan, sprott's extension of the first payment and the accruing of late fees, and sprott's pp participation has:
provided funds of about $400,000 in finder's fees for director gordon
provided funds so that most of the bank of frank loan and related-party expenses/services could be paid
provided funds so that directors clarici and mcmillan could get about $75,000 each in ceo and president fees and expenses
provided about $160,000 in fees to james callaghan and $480,000 in severance pay
provided funds tp pay for rent, dhanini, rees, sean, the ir crew, etc. for over a year.
maybe it's about time that sprott stopped being mr. good guy and looked after himself for a change?
he's been much, much more generous than most would have been in the hard-nosed mining business, especially in with the downturn in the markets and the price of gold and, imo, it's time for someone to crack the whip and rein in the outpouring of cash.
bring the assets in under his wing and finally let the chips fall where they may (they won't fall on him, imo).
>