bobert

"What I want is a management team that doesn't give half the company away to the banks and have the price collapse in one week in the process"

The price would have collapse regardless of what the offering was as the shorts would have driven SP down to cover. Also the previous highs were un realistic as far as value was concerned. The price may have been low but so far at least SP is holding around 10% above the offering price.

Adding 200 million in debt IMO is much worse than dilution. Both affect possible takeover bids and lower SP.One of DG's main objective has been to lower operating costs. With that in mind, CASH is needed and they no longer have the $200 million line of credit ( I seem to remember everyone screaming about the high servicing cost negotiated so I'm glad it's gone) borrowing immediately adds to costs as soon as payments begin whereas dilution costs nothing.

Debt will eventually be paid but shares can also be bought back. right now survival is the main objective and that requires cutting costs and increasing production. Dilution was the only way to increase production and keep costs down. It's all about long term, which coincidentally cannot be achieved if one goes bankrupt.

BOBERT

"Do you think "we" still own 100% of CLL? Didn't the issuing of 168 million shares plus the over allotment of 25 million shares at 90 cents just give somebody else half of the company?

I'm pretty sure he meant that CLL was a single entity owned by it's shareholders ( and debt holders) and not part of a joint venture with other companies as is UTS.