things we never knew, now we can't ignore

A few things from past posts need to be repeated... sorry but I can't find the original posts.

The trees are counted as project assets until they are harvested. This means investors don't own the trees until they're no longer in the ground. I didn't realise this until someone posted the fine print of the agreement and it says that. The receivers could well push this point and hand them over to pay the banks, instead they're trying to find a new RE. Which option do investors prefer?

The maintenance costs were never paid for by investors. Again I didn't realise this until it was pointed out earlier. Investors paid for establishment costs, ie.buying land and planting. The RE was to set up a maintenance fund themselves. Of course this fund was financed by application monies but in the agreement it's not worded that way.

All investors will never agree, even until the end of time. Either you want something back or nothing. It's up to us now.

PPPL are sunk, Gunns aren't certain and Blacktree are so GTP-esque it's scary. How will Blacktree magically produce hundreds of millions of dollars more than PPPL or Gunns out of the same trees? I read comments like that in a prospectus about 10 years ago. The only thing they haven't quoted is 250 m³/ha.

If anyone doesn't want a new RE and is happy to see the projects collapse or sold off I'm happy to have you transfer your share of returns to me. There's still value here and I'm happy to have it if anyone doesn't.

Gunns are now the only offer that's on the table, if they fail then I have to vote for Blacktree, who are so vague in the costs, especially the totally undefined maintenance costs, and so overly optimistic on returns that Cameron Rhodes must be in there somewhere.

There isn't even any certainty that Blacktree will eventually have an offer at all. Under these circumstances how could I not vote for the only substantiated offer?

I've already voted for Gunns, I've voted twice to be sure.