RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:For centuries a proven strategy has been successful in warThank you for pointing me in the right directions.
Not going to read everything other that there is a lot
varying facts and disagreements reflected.
There is also a lot of history with many simple facts.
Not sure I am going to repeat them all or question all
of Mr. Wheatly’s claims.
Without stipulating actual timelines, a lot of critical objectives
were never meet by KRN. Raising the funds while advancing the project.
On which a lot of time was spent. Aside from the litigations.
Now you have disagreement on what should be a priority and why?
Potash
Magnesium or
Nitrogen,
In either situation, studies where required. You can dispute all the decisions you want,
GSFC’s primary investment in the company is potash. Nothing new here.
Then you have cultural differences that in my experience can complicate communications
and how people do business. As to how direct they may have gotten with Agco after so many
years should not come as a surprise or dissatisfied with a CEO’ approach.
How the lobbying rules apply to a Canadian company would require a formal legal opinion to give any credence to Mr. Wheatley’s comments.
Whether people think that slinging insults or that some think I am a GSFC shill, has nothing to do
with all the discord. There is no unity and a cancer on how to manage this company effectively.
Nothing is going to change the current reality and Mr. Wheatley’s claims that the majority of non-GSFC Shareholders are siding with the Concerned Shareholders are unfounded or accurate.
GFSC left KRN manage its affaire for a long time even after Goodman despite past claims that they were interfering. Once they became an important shareholder, they are in their right to continue in their primary mission of receiving Potash.
Whether we agree or not, or that as partner GSFC should assist in other ventures? As far back as I can remember, they have always been looking to safeguard the money they invested with an objective to get potash. Unfortunate some disagree.
Did they mislead shareholders concerning the Nitrogen or things change? Want to waste that money trying to prove otherwise? Fine, not sure what will be gained other than just more mud slinging.
Any company, public or private is governed by the percentage of shares: 50% +1, majority of a board, 2 to 3, or 4 to 6.
Without getting into ever contract signed of interpretations of agreements, how many time have I come across people leaving a meeting with different interpretations. People hear what they want and a famous saying by Alan Greenspan: “ I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
From the first day I was told about the Phinney’s family aspirations, there are 3 primary obstacle in any new venture? All of which came to pass:
- Ability to raise the capital.
- Management abilities and track record. An area where they proved to be lacking.
- How do you maintain control, when the percentage of share get diluted or change when seeking a partner/customer to raise all the capital required? This the result of the deal negotiated.
So no, I am not a GSFC shill, I just recognize all the factors in play and how imperfect people are. This is the result of ideals that even with all the best intentions do not go accordingly to plan.
Isn’t there a name for that? Oh yeah, Murphy’s Law!
Without even looking for an answer on the pros and cons concerning location for the Nitrogen project, they are clearly discussions Mr. Wheatley did not present or apparently have with the board. Unless there was a good reason, I would have thought Wynyard would have been a good location. Who ever is investing, they are things to work out? All to say, a lot of money has been spent to validate ideas. As to who can close these deals, people must all be rowing the same way.
We are not being paid for this and unfortunately, these are some of the problems within the board or management.
These are the sad realities in investing in public companies and unless one owns a company outright working well with others is paramount.
Whether anyone agrees or disagrees is the least of my worries. I have very little hope that people are going to come together on this and move.
I also recall when the Recommendation from BMO was to place the project on maintenance, but of course, this would not have gotten done what was expected and a deal with GSFC would most likely not have materialized.
So after 10 + years we will see what happens, but this company and its shareholders are mired in probably one of the most perpetual disputes that only keeps depleting its value.
That’s about as much time as I am going to waste on this this week, if not longer.
BS