Ann: Full Year Results Presentation, page-26

Who's he going to sell to? He owns a 15% strategic stake, which is illiquid and only has a very limited pool of buyers.

There are a handful of reasons why inferring positive information content out of Bruce Gordon's holding is and always has been a bit of a red herring, in my mind:

1) His interests (as a media investor with various other media interests) are very different to minority retail shareholders. PRT may hold some strategic or other value for BG that retail holders don't have.
2) He's not at all infallible - in fact, he dusted a huge amount of money recently when Channel 10 went under.
3) There are two sides to every transaction - a buyer and a seller. Sure, BG ought to be a knowledgable buyer, but who was the seller in that transaction? Channel 7 - who'd owned its stake for decades, is PRT's major supplier, and probably knows the PRT business better than any other shareholder in the world - was the seller. It's just pure confirmation bias for PRT's holders to infer positive information content from BG buying, while ignoring the obvious negative information content of Channel 7 selling (and given what Channel 7 did in the affiliation agreement renewal, we now have a pretty good idea why C7 sold).