Having completely mis-read you in the past and reacting off the...

Having completely mis-read you in the past and reacting off the cuff (an episode for which I am still sorry) be assured, this is a little more considered. I'm just not sure that your comment is fair, or accurate.
I recall DT at the time, going to some lengths in explaining why he'd rather raise via retail shareholders, when RAC did have the option to go to Instos.
But that aside, there does seem to be a difference in sentiment here between holders and those not holding, but trying to look at this impassively, and working on the principle that you can only play the ball you are bowled, I'm not sure RAC have much of a case to answer.
Any comment around pricing then and now, suggests they had a crystal ball, and somehow could have predicted global events that nobody saw coming. Events that contributed to the bio-tech market imploding, with RAC taking a 50% hit, and others taking much larger.
Given the situation then, and now, I don't see the problem with this. RAC has seen a very small amount of trades skittle the price, knowing the majority of large/ long term holders are not blinking, and world events have given them a cost efficient way to halt that. Potentially without spending a bean.
Stability and even growth may prove crucial in the short term were (and I stress WERE) there to be a deal done with BF.
The fact that the announcement only covers about 1.5% of all share on issue, and at this point, is only a threat to buy, and yet, can have this effect on the share price/ trading, speaks volumes to me.
This (IMHO) simply would not be possible with a company haemorrhaging shares/ holders that had lost belief. But a strong, high potential company, being manipulated on low volume would potentially be a different story, surely?
I guess time will tell. But the acid test - does this represent shareholders best interests? Well, it works for me.