cruiser51
Top 20
It wasn't a difficult riddle to be honest.Just keeping you on your toes Cruiser . You are correct .
I asked my 4 legged friend and he got it right first time.
Please no brain gymnastics over the weekend.

It wasn't a difficult riddle to be honest.Just keeping you on your toes Cruiser . You are correct .
This out of the original TIA announcement:So you reckon AVZ are hiding behind the fact we have a TIA with CATH instead of a normal sale as the reason for no Cominiere pre-emption notification?
Makes sense but it's a bit shady to announce the deal to the ASX without telling the JV partners first. Not that I care if Cominiere are getting rat fucked by this structuring haha
But it does give ammo to Cominiere with their 'AVZ don't have any money' claims which they have used to delay the finalising of the licence as we can't fund construction without the CATH money as things stand in official announcements
View attachment 36059
@JAG
Love your two piccys - this one and the jail house pineapple
This one displayed here carries all the facets of beautiful corruption in one snap, and I piss myself laughing every time you post it
Could I suggest replacing Guy with Celestine in the Jail pic, to make the image current and appropriate?
TIA
On one hand we are saying we definitely have the money for construction but on the other we are saying Cominiere get no pre-emption because we technically haven't decided to sell because all we have is a transaction agreement. CATH can walk at anytime for 20m.Could you expand on this further for the thicker people like me?
We've got a signed sealed and delivered Financial study to accompany a robust DFS.
Is that not what is required to prove we have the financial capacity to build this mine?
In what way can it be construed that we don't have the funds backing us to do this?
Yep all looks good to meTO THE NEWBIES OUT THERE INCLUDING TOMMY WANKER FROM AFR
Current percentages of Dathcom as they stand.
AVZ 75%..................Subject to ICC dispute with DATHOMIR 15%
COM 15% / DRC 10%.......Com 15% subject to ROFR AVZ / ZIJIN ICC dispute
AVZ could have 90% control of Dathcom if both ICC deliberations are favourable
AVZ could have 60% control of Dathcom if both ICC deliberations are not favourable
Add CATH 24% to the mix
a) Assuming AVZ have 90% control, equation looks like this ( AVZ 66%, CATH 24%, DRC 10% ).........my preferred option
b) Assuming AVZ have 60% control , equation looks like this ( AVZ 36%, CATH 24%, ZIJIN 15%, DATHOMIR 15% , DRC 10% ).......Oooops, that cant happen cause AVZ dont have 51% operator control as per DRC mining law
c) Assuming AVZ have 60% control, equation must look like this ( AVZ 51%, CATH 9%, ZIJIN 15%, DATHOMIR 15%, DRC 10% )
That last equation would be a working nightmare with ZIJIN / DATHOMIR crooks having 30% , never the less, AVZ retain control, no matter what.
@Carlos Danger ................would i be correct in those scenarios ?
imo, imo
Yeah probs the wrong word to use but I meant it in a positive way if that makes sense hahaIt is not a question of hiding.
It is more a part of a chess game to counter the attempted wheeling and dealing by the bastards of Cominière in cahoots with Zijin.
This announcement should not be seen on its own.
Look at the date of the announcement, when all this was playing out and how long Zijin has been fukking around, it tells you a little bit of the story behind the scenes.
The timing was very special.
Anybody who thinks that NF, or the AVZ BoD are a bunch of twits walking around with their heads up their arses, makes a big mistake, that is included CKK.
He will find out the hard way what happens, if you don't know the rules and want to play with the big boys.
No prisoners will be taken in this game.
A nudge, wink and a smile and you are under the bus in Kinshasa central.
IndeedYou show me one document which states that AVZI has sold 24% of Dathcom to CATH.
All they have is an agreement to sell (the famous TIA), which either of the parties can cancel any time, even today!
But the 24% has not been sold, very simple.
Why do you think this 24% has not been sold as yet?
I don't think AVZ is as stupid as Cominière.
That's how I see it.TO THE NEWBIES OUT THERE INCLUDING TOMMY WANKER FROM AFR
Current percentages of Dathcom as they stand.
AVZ 75%..................Subject to ICC dispute with DATHOMIR 15%
COM 15% / DRC 10%.......Com 15% subject to ROFR AVZ / ZIJIN ICC dispute
AVZ could have 90% control of Dathcom if both ICC deliberations are favourable
AVZ could have 60% control of Dathcom if both ICC deliberations are not favourable
Add CATH 24% to the mix
a) Assuming AVZ have 90% control, equation looks like this ( AVZ 66%, CATH 24%, DRC 10% ).........my preferred option
b) Assuming AVZ have 60% control , equation looks like this ( AVZ 36%, CATH 24%, ZIJIN 15%, DATHOMIR 15% , DRC 10% ).......Oooops, that cant happen cause AVZ dont have 51% operator control as per DRC mining law
c) Assuming AVZ have 60% control, equation must look like this ( AVZ 51%, CATH 9%, ZIJIN 15%, DATHOMIR 15%, DRC 10% )
That last equation would be a working nightmare with ZIJIN / DATHOMIR crooks having 30% , never the less, AVZ retain control, no matter what.
@Carlos Danger ................would i be correct in those scenarios ?
imo, imo
Yes this is wrong, to be brutally honest as silly as Tommy's uneducated ramblings.
At this very moment all CATH has an TIA (a signed document), which can be terminated any time.
Any Idea why the deal was continually extended without completing?
The deal has never been completed, ie CATH has an agreement to buy, but not bought.
To explain this in very simple terms....
I sell you my car, if I buy a new one.
However I have not sold my car as yet. So, no sale as yet.
I hope this explains.
A completely different concept as the AVZI - Dathomir deal, which is a completed sales contract!
Condition precedent; mining license is the obvious one.Yes this is wrong, to be brutally honest as silly as Tommy's uneducated ramblings.
At this very moment all CATH has an TIA (a signed document), which can be terminated any time.
Any Idea why the deal was continually extended without completing?
The deal has never been completed, ie CATH has an agreement to buy, but not bought.
To explain this in very simple terms....
I sell you my car, if I buy a new one.
However I have not sold my car as yet. So, no sale as yet.
I hope this explains.
A completely different concept as the AVZI - Dathomir deal, which is a completed sales contract!
If the twitter-sphere has any penetration to the upper echelon of DRC government it would be getting very uncomfortable for some of the rotten sods. A lot of posters calling out MoM, MoP for their greed and one gets a feeling they are sick and tired of the populace being condemned to poverty while the select few corner the spoils. I spotted a picture of a large chap wearing a flash suit and a very expensive watch in the same frame as MoM,MoP and that dodgey snakehead prick accompanied by the following post:
"First international judgment AVZ Minerals vs COMMINIERE, the DRC is being humiliated at the international level following the cover and tolerance of the president the members of his corrupt government who did not want to decide between the two parties for the benefit of the people"
Pressure for old mate to do the right thing is building.
Then why would the MoM cite Cominiere's claims eg 'abuse of majority' in the new decrees?The SAS to SA company for Dathcom structure was a CP for Yibin Tianyi to invest, for AVZ to have more control over the Board.
Cominiere doesn’t seem to have understood or accepted that. Minister of Mines does though.
“Serious people solve their dispute on the same table that saw the birth of their partnership”I think I have caught out old mate Cominiere impersonator.
When you use google translate, it often translates ICC to CPI depending on the context. What French speaking person would refer to the ICC as the CPI?
Not a real account.
View attachment 36113
View attachment 36115
Nope… it’s french translation.
Cour pénale internationale (CPI)
But it’s the International criminal court.
Our case is at the ICC International Court of Arbitration, or am I wrong?
So it seams this guy makes of course a mistake.
They are two completely different entities.The International Criminal Court is separate surely?
Why would Cominiere be referring to the International Criminal Court? It reads to me like someone has just put ICC into google translate.