Well I thought there is zero cash change hand. So that's...

Well I thought there is zero cash change hand. So that's expected. I very much doubt that vendor will cough up a single dollar for penalty or buying back an asset for 30+ mil usd. Even if Singapore force him to cough up, as you can see, there is still room for him to drag out the payment or hide his cash elsewhere.

The only thing I hope for is cancellation for vendor's share and iron clad contract to ensure safety of the lease. But I guess I was naive to think contract means anything to people like him. Only carrot will likely to work for people like him

If we think about it again, it is pretty much back to 3 years ago with a bit consolations to shareholder.

1. The lease is 50 years more
2. 25% of EBITDA- $16mil is actually better than when he took 25% of flat NPAT. At $60 mil EBITDA, that works out to be lease fee of $11mil. In aud thats 16.75 mil aud. That's still better than management fee of 19 mil aud recorded last time. Mind you SV peak earning was around $60mil USD EBITDA.

Also, remember that the deal is for five years not forever. Five years of peace of mind is ok I guess. I don't see he has any incentive to pull a troubled asset back into fold given he has plenty of spaces for junket. The upside is getting another casino back but the downside is the time and energy to run another casino which isn't as profitable as it used to be, paying 30+ mil usd for the building, losing his share value and forgo zero effort profit and rent. By then, we are in much stronger position to weather any down turn when debt is fully paid and cashed up.

Plus I think management has learnt lesson of paying via proper account and get bloody receipt!

I am happy if the asset is making 40mil EBIT in one to 2 years time. If debt free, that is 28 mil NPAT. I can live with that as a long term holder.

Maybe I am optimist. I still believe Asian gaming especially Indo-China, China and Thailand are still growing rapidly in the next few decades.