It seems to me all this "credibility" and "ethics" discussion with John, Kurt and SK is a case of "can't see the forest for the trees".
First, current management in my mind, is defined as those responsible for the direction and operations of the company at this time. That means for the time being Sid, Russ, and John Norton and none of these gentleman has done ANYTHING that I am aware of that even suggest impropriety.
Second, the hearing with the ASC involve the efforts on the part of the ASE to deliberately hamper the future success of Naxos by placing undue burdens on the narrowness of criteria for "approved" assay results. And now in retrospect, the ASE was clearly wrong regarding the reality of PM's at FL. Also, the hearings involve some specific trading by specific officers, which if taken in the context of the vast majority of Canadian operations, is the norm, but when put under the microscope, can be pushed into the category of "illegal" trades.
(For example, how many "broke the law" this morning and exceeded the speed limit driving to work? That is except Russ)
Third, Naxos could not be more transparent with the current drilling and testing as well as with a property that is easily visited and inspected.
Fourth, I would suspect that the people at CPM Group are just a tad smarter and just a smidge more interested in the "credibility" and "ethics" of Naxos Resources Ltd. If they had even a whiff of things being anything but on the straight and narrow, they wouldn't have touched this with a 10-foot pole. (Norm Debloski is this very tall Polish fellow who ruffs up any unseemly characters CPM Group has a problem with. And is HE won't touch them, they are pretty bad)
So you see, the "forest" that I see is the important one which involves the proving up of the property. It is completely above board, for all to see, testing using industry standard procedures.
The "trees" you guys seem to be stuck in involves distribution of shares, perceived dilution, etc. etc. all of which have little or no impact if Naxos can prove up the property. If they have a proof a couple hundred million ounces of PM's, even if they issued another 10 million shares, our value per share impact would mean we will get a 60 fold return on our investment instead of a 75 fold return. Boy would THAT be a bummer. But I guess it wouldn't stink either. And if in fact all the current share activity was necessary to keep this ship afloat until it gets into port, then the alternative is a sunken ship with NO buried treasure.
Finally, if any of you have "serious" problems with things you cannot control, you are left with only a few options. Sell and relieve yourself of the burden, make a formal protest directly to the company, make specific charges and file them with the SEC. Put your chip on the table and DO something about it if you feel this is THAT serious an issue. But do yourselves a favour first, call CPM Group and pose your questions and concerns to them first. See what they say. They will CERTAINLY have an opinion on issues like this. Then get back to us here and tell us what you find out. I think I can tell you now, but surprise us anyway.
Good hunting!
Tom F. |
