regent's bid for bc takes a hit , page-5

Hi goarmy,

I hope it's not about to come across that I'm deliberately disagreeing with you. Just offering my opinion which I'm afraid is slightly different to yours.

I'd say things have been working up to this current situation for sometime now. The perceived tiff that is.

I think that these events are about Palmary (ConsMin) and BCI management, who's relationship has been probably unworkable for sometime now. Not the future or even present relationship of Palmary and Regent.

I'm saying that it has been the past relationship of BCI management and Palmary, that has lead to the present events. Regent is just backing up BCI management ... or should that be the other way around?

I'm convinced that the article, which was from Palmary's point of veiw, was done to try and scare BCI management and Regent. I also think that none of us should jump to conclusions. The article was written from Palmary's perspective and should be considered as one side of the debate. If Regent or BCI management wished, they could probably write some sort of damning article about Palmary. BCI management it seems would prefer to keep disputes between the two parties and not air them publicly like Palmary has choosen.

Also, I know that I choose to use the word Palmary rather than ConsMin. That's because I believe that the entity "ConsMin" (subsidiary) isn't the issue here. It Palmary (parent) who have become the issue.

I also don't think that Regent will have to pull out of BCI. Regent may choose to pull out of BCI by their own accord. But that decision if they do will be unrelated to any threats that Palmary maybe leveling at Regent. It's Regent who are in the box seat here believe it or not, not Palmary. They hold the support of the BCI board. Palmary however it would seem, are on the outer trying to get a little leverage back - hence the recent article.

Regent pulling out of BCI? That opinion occurred in some people's minds after reading a web article. An article that was one side of the story, an article that caused a trading halt with a explaination from BCI management that the article was inaccurate in many areas.

I find it slightly bemusing that for alot of the once, "true believers" in this company. Why some haven't placed the same importance on the recent words of the BCI board, as they do on Palmary's claims. It's as though nothing that management say in their defence could be true. Since they have been held guilty of something before the trial. They're almost yesterday's heros. The mere mention of accusations from Palmary against BCI management, and most are hanging BCI management from the nearest tree. Why not consider that BCI is doing the honorable thing here, and not displaying their dirty laundry in public. I know we all desperately want any information from management. But if management thinks that it's not in the best interest of shareholders to publicly address Palmary's claims, and that it would only further inflame the situation. Than that is probably a good call from management.

Yes the writer of the article probably was given insider information. What was the motivation of the informant? Every informant has a vested interest in telling anyone anything. Why would this "insider" make such a public announcement? ... For public support maybe? ... To try to scare BCI management and Regent maybe? ... Probably, but if anyone thinks that the informant/s were so outraged by the current events that they needed to somehow vent their anger and speak about it publicly ... Than you've probably drawn the wrong conclusion.

ConsMin have been willing to take people to court recently. Hasn't Consolidated taken their Mindy Mindy JV partner FMG to court? If that's the case, how does BCI's JV partner FMG feel about that? The fact that ConsMin wants to take people to court so regularly, may speak volumes about the company ... shows at least that they don't mind playing hard ball. ConsMins defendents may differ with ConsMins approach however. Some may love a world where the threat of legal action is a constant. Others may not.

Tony's a solicitor. I'm sure he's got his eyes wide open, just like Mike. I'm also sure they know what ConsMin are like regarding legal action. I'd be surprised if they have left themselves open to anything. Infact it would stun me if that turned out to be the case. No one should think that BCI managements present silence is proof of their guilt. Far from it.