Icay,The nub of your post is what everyone ranting and heating...

Icay,

The nub of your post is what everyone ranting and heating up about is exactly the point.

Inspite/despite comments in the SD Chairman's letter, there is nothing that precludes (and if anyone has been around long enough, or read about change of Govts) the books are worse than we thought, and we have do react to the situation.

We didn't think is was the case but...and so on..

Yes, it is a long shot, and they should have known with a 277M contribution that all is good.

AS folk seem to enjoy the house analogy, if you had a five bedroom house, and leased out three one of which to become a storefront.(and if you have tried lately to rent out would know exactly how much detail is needed by agencies) you would be especially nervous if renting house rooms meant they could remodel the place.

So has the equivalent DD been done by a third independent party on the new owners?

Can it be expected that the extent of remodelling be indicated

What anticipated cash flows and returns from the storefront be expected to generate over time for the inconvenience.

Apologies for stretching this analogy so far.

WE know that they hardly pay anything like a reasonable divvie. hat will change that minfset?

I don't mind the new tenant perse, and there could be some daily niggles, but at least the big things should be well and truly defined in the Tenancy Agreement.

(having just typed that, I realise the 49ers in fact the tenants and we will need to keep our nose clean or we ill be kicked out. Of course, we can't just be tossed into the street, more subtlety is required.)

The truly BIG thing is that this information vacuum was allowed to be created. SD may well set a precedence and a be role model of a good Chinese citizen owning Australian assets for all future 51% deals, anything is possible, but where things stand now, definately anything is possible and thats the problem.