is that all you have SP3 - wow. do you not agree in a general...

is that all you have SP3 - wow.

do you not agree in a general business sense - that a 2 partnered deal is preferrable to a 3 partnered deal.

that good mgmt will beat a company with poor mgmt.

a correctly structured deal will save shareholders time and money and resources.

I thought they were all self evident.

-----------------------------------------------------

in relation to deals with 3 partners - in general yes they are bad.

What i find high risk is when having 3 partners - it all gets very complicated, very time consuming and it takes a lot more effort. If one pulls the pin then you are no better off then if there were 2 partners. As the deal will collapse inevitably.
For example with the Tincom deal - Tincom have money, Loy yang have the coal and ESI have the Tech. Which one of those would you like to pull out - the money or the coal. Either way ESI is screwed.
Not to mention the govt is actually a silent 4th partner.

----------------------------------------
"will wipe the floor with poor mgmt" - I said in context a company with excellent mgmt and avge technology will wipe the floor with a company with poor mgmt and excellent tech.
I though everyone understood this business maxim.
---------------------------------------
"A correctly structured deal can save shareholders time,money and resources" - which part of this is bad to esi.

It is a business maxim that I thought everyone would understand.