The grumbling? Just pointing out that a wholly owned subsidiary...

The grumbling? Just pointing out that a wholly owned subsidiary required seed capital?

Where was the risk that warrants a 961 percent return (yes, they can't sell for a year) when this gold resource was set to be a JV with Wiluna Gold, or whoever they were back then, just 2 years ago. This wasn't a bunch of tenements bundled together on a wing and a prayer.

Great, yes, we get 1 share for every 8 or thereabouts we hold in GWR. That is not the point, the point is why was the seed capital required, why has the provider been so well rewarded, bearing in mind that these shares will amount to approx. 15 percent of the initial shares on issue. Wouldn't you prefer GWR to have provided the seed capital, if it was at all required, for both your and my benefit's or would you prefer some interloper to get it?

That's the 'grumble'.