are weg pulling their weight?, page-99

When all is said and done, less should be said and more should be done...

So the discussion on whether to vote Yes or No was sparked off by a query on if 'Not Fair' paying WEG 50% royalities, could be avoided and subsequently return more value to us shareholders. As pointed out by the independent Experts report and other HC contributors, given that we dont have a lot of options and despite the fact that most of us feel that it is 'Not Fair', under the circumstances it is better to choose to vote Yes as that is the 'Reasonable' thing to do. When you are backed into a corner, which we are despite the airy fairy persuasions that there are other options available to us, we dont have a lot of choice. Tony knows the full picture and as much as anyone about the integrity of WEG but he does not know the full picture and and as anyone that has been married for a few years will tell you, do you really ever know anyone that well??!! So Tony is just hoping like the rest of us that WEG will do the right thing by us in the future but no-one knows for certain. The future Secretary of State of the USA was being interviewed for his job before the senate and he was asked if he could possibly make the same mistakes as the Nixon administration and he said to the senator that was looking for some sort of assurance that he would'nt stuff up, "We all make mistakes, even you Senator"...

As much as this discussion has been interesting and all, I suspect that it will not have any impact on the outcome because WEG has a 20% contribution to the vote, and with the usual number of votes held by the chairman by default, ultimately the majority vote will be YES. As Nathan Tinkler found out today, even owning approximately 20% of Whitehaven and attempting to vote a NO to appointing 4 directors, he failed due to lacking a majority.

So WEG you get 50% of Cockatoo but hopefully this discussion will have done its job and reached the ears of Ms Chang, with all its implications for Irvine Island.....