Banter and general comments, page-22187

Even GS was reluctant to pursue the "ceiling price" OT continuance claim..

I would suggest therefore that a renegotiation may have been effected on a "commercial in confidence" basis and that your claim, as energetic and enthusiastic as it is, may have no basis in fact.

If you were correct, Goulburn Sachs would be all over this like flies on a big steaming turd, and they are not.

They read it, they made mention of it and then they dropped it like a hot potatoe as they were "Unsure" .
In fact they used the word "might " three times in a recent article that incorporated just this very subject.

If of course you have indisputable proof that the ceiling has not been renegotiated then I would consider your considered opinion in a more favorable light.

The question that you might consider is, does a renegotiated "Commercial In Confidence" agreement override ASX Listing Rule 3.1, Continuous Disclosure,? and that, S100, is the conundrum that we are in.

Not trying to hijack your thinking, but simply addressing the issue from another perspective.

In any attempted take-over, Add $2.50 for the SS Theft