One of the problems, as I see it, is there's too much ambiguity...

One of the problems, as I see it, is there's too much ambiguity in the deal.

I.e no guarantee that shareholders will share in the upside of bringing a very substantial iron ore resource online, as well as Mutooroo, which in itself, could have been a company maker.

A possible (likely?) scenario is that as the projects are progressively de-risked, SIMEC's stranglehold on the projects increases, with the end result being they eventually take full control without shareholders seeing any significant return.

You have to wonder how they came up with this deal when Gupta tells them how important this resource is to GFG:

"This is a critical step. Without having a proper supply chain behind the steel plant there's no way we could commit to such a large undertaking," Mr Gupta said."

Even in these circumstances, management still can't make a deal that is unambiguously good for shareholders.

I think it's up to the big holders to tell management that they're unhappy with this deal and to go back and negotiate an unambiguously good deal.

If not, how long between s249D requests? A lot of shareholders that voted "no" in that meeting have now seen what management have in store for the company.

A simple "yes" or "no" vote at an EGM doesn't really work as shareholders do not know how much collective opposition there is to the deal and may well just rubber stamp it, a 249d request, however, draws the line in the sand.