JS I am not not swooning I do hope this is not aimed at serious...

JS I am not not swooning I do hope this is not aimed at serious positive discussion or argument.

You state:
"Is there any chance of getting a cash divvy while this money exists? I believe not."

There are laws prohibiting a large shareholder from disadvantaging smaller shareholders and a balance in favor of FML on the proposed Board (4/3). This is commercial - this point outlines why I disagree with you what are saying above. The other issue is that I believe all serious investors want dividend returns so why would SGG not want dividends that does not make commercial sense to me.

Next point:
Do you have any track record of SGG illegally manipulating a position as a major shareholder in any other company to secure a hedging position as you suggest? How can they legally hedge gold to themselves from FML production? Please explain this accusation / theory. You are actually stating they are dishonest or going to act illegally are you not? How else can I view your statements on this set me straight if you have another angle.

And where do you get this idea from (?) - "Obviously counter their aims. So if their aim is to secure gold in ground, where is the incentive to spend money on sp growth or dividends. Its not what they want."

This does not sound commercial at all. Where do you get the idea "Its not what they want"? Tell the readers please to back up this statement it seems pretty wild to me.

You also state: "Please stop waving the carrot of techno geeky geo stuff, and show people where the money will come from. And no more stories about mates in pig farms, of fund managers."

I am waving a carrot am I - how do you figure that out? I thought I was offering analysis on how we can all benefit via the use of the money - you know for the shareholders on a commercial basis - turning mineral deposits into money. That is what leading mining houses are supposed to do why would SGG not want that? Again I do not understand the logic in your accusations.

FYI
The examples I used were to attempt to explain the commercial nature of the transaction. Fund managers work on a commercial basis and view things that way, not based on innuendo, accusation etc.

You don't use their language so I assumed you are not from a corporate background - am I wrong (?) - "you have not net me". But from your arguments and language this seems obvious to me, that you are not from a corporate background but correct me if I am wrong about your lack of corporate (commercial) credentials.

Assuming I am right - seeing as what you term "techno geeky stuff" is not corporate speak then yes the people I have been talking to do have more experience with commercial transaction than you - hence my observation - not meant as any insult.

Just my thoughts on this post of yours this evening. You have been highly vocal so I have not analyzed all of them.

Have a great evening,
CW
DYOR&DD
PS looking forward to the answers to these questions to back up your assertions.