The no vote, page-7

I noticed in another thread a question as to the purpose of the email account. I understand that it is in a similar vein to Paul Johnson's Shareholder Action Group for ESG and Jake's WCL group. Whilst they were always going to be up against it due to major shareholders, MEL has quite an open register, with ERM's holding able to be cancelled out via a collective of small holders (assuming they are voting yes). This is unlike ESG where Santos and friends held over 20% before the action kicked off, or WCL where the Chinese bought on market and management had very large stakes.

The email address has the following benefits:

-Primarily it would help collate numbers so as to determine whether a no vote had a genuine chance of getting up.
-Secondly, it would allow for ease of communication.
-Thirdly it would create a strong voting block of combined parcels that may have a larger say in any future negotiation than small holders individually.

Whilst everyone has different thresholds for an end price; if you intend to vote no it could certainly do no harm to combine forces with other holders. I understand that there has been considerable interest already and a considerable number of shares pledged to a no vote. In the end the government needs 50% of holders to say yes, and if more than 50% of holders can get together in a voting block the negotiating position will surely be influenced.