gandel taken to task over tin stake, page-3

Thanks S101, I couldn't find a link and was uncomfortable about reproducing something that might have been copyright protected.
Whatever the merits of the proposed spin-off, there is a clear conflict of interest where the people making the decisions are the same on both sides of the deal, that is not to say that the proposed deal is flawed, but, as I've written before, in the dim past, the definition of a conflict of interest includes, amongst many other things, the perception of a conflict of interest. There is a clear perception of a conflict of interest here, IMO.
The valuation of GIP's interest in Heemskirk is going to be the all important ingredient but, again, we have the problem that the same protagonists have commissioned it.
I'm thinking that a totally independent valuer could be appointed by ASIC or whoever the relevant authority is, or a meeting could be requisitioned to appoint an independent valuer, in whom we could all have confidence.
One of the difficulties some may have with the spin-off, and I'm one of them, and I'm now talking about Heemskirk, not Eritrea, which I've previously described (and still do) as a mill-stone for GIP, is that having put so much into GIP, over so many years, in blood, sweat and tears, not to mention $$$, OK let's mention them, with nothing to show in return, they cannot possibly contribute in any meaningful way to any fund-raising for the spin-off, while GIP stays at 3.5c, which is a sick joke.
All in all, I now think, regarding the proposed spin-off, that Eritrea would be wholly unatttractive without Heemskirk, and Heemskirk cannot go for $800,000 worth of shares in Adobha.
There will have to be a big sweetener for GIP re. Heemskirk before any spin-off can happen, IMO.
I've heard it argued that for the spin-off to work it has to be attractive to investors, which means GIP giving away something, due to its inability to fund the projects, but since the 'investors' being talked about consist entirely of existing GIP shareholders and the underwriter(?), I'm not convinced that those who can should be advantaged over those who can't, which is what it boils down to, so far as I can see.