Still think this was a bit of a dog's breakfast. Whichever way...

Still think this was a bit of a dog's breakfast. Whichever way you look at it you can see why retail holders would be damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Without the quarterly retail holders are left suspecting something is amiss given first thoughts are this would be a no brainer to release prior to a raising, or even prior to the Kaddy acquisition - surely a rough idea of the quarterly numbers would have been known prior to announcing the deal which bodes the question of how much value could have potentially been missed for shareholders. Obviously talks wouldn't have happened overnight, so they've drawn the bow and pushed on ahead. If the quarterly is good - then you have to ask the question as a shareholder why all the dilution at a lower price - essentially giving Kaddy holders and founders more of a free lunch.

On the flip side the lack of a quarterly and the amount of dilution in succession means holders don't have any idea of how the Parton integration has started to play out - so jumping into the SPP is a leap of faith. Case of chicken or the egg first, but the share price at 5.5/5.6 clearly shows the indecision where one could merely buy on market and get exactly what they want or need, than lucky dip in the SPP. The extension now of the SPP to allow for the quarterly (speculating) to be digested also proves a catch 22 - if it blows it out of the water then suddenly all the applications result in a scale back, and you would have been better off buying on market anyway. If this occurs refer back to first point above where they've sold DW8 holders short by doing the Kaddy deal at a much lower share price with (one would assume) knowledge of a good quarterly dropping.

Still find it concerning with the amount of dilution - first Partons, and in succession all the milestones of performance shares (how much can be attributed to acquisitions for the sake of hitting rights vs strategically sound acquisitions that happened to serve dual purposes by coincidence?), and the lack of a quarter or two to digest how the strategy plays out. There are some LT holders here who back all the dilution for the long term faith in Dean - which is fine, but I'd imagine there's a fair bit of apprehension in the market on how it plays out.

it would be good to clarify or even have (if it isn't already) future performance rights tied to the core businesses financial metrics, thereby removing acquisition led growth to metrics resulting in performance rights being hit. This was clarified in the Kaddy presentation - which is good. Still think the Kaddy guys are laughing all the way to the bank though with the least to potentially lose from this.