Because of execution risk - firstly that the takeover of GOR by...

Because of execution risk - firstly that the takeover of GOR by Goldfields is successful and completes, which is challenging at the moment with GOR management refusing the initial offer, and secondly that the shares that GOR hold within DEG are monetised by the transaction from NST (on this point there seems little doubt as to the NST takeover of DEG going ahead and this execution risk is low).

Also execution risk in that Goldfields abandon the idea and instead put their 50% of Gruyere up for sale, I think thats unlikely because Goldfields have made all the noises that they want to return to and expand in Australia despite their flat-footed and half-hearted attempts so far, what Goldfields do have in Australia is a bunch of WA mines that will all mature and run out of ore at the same time, unless further significant discoveries are made near Gruyere, St Ives, Agnew and Granny Smith. We don't know the decision-making and everything going on in the Goldfields offices ourselves but they haven't been proven to be agile in deal-making in Australia so far, elsewhere they seem to be able to execute better.

If there is the industry perception out there that Goldfields have sabotaged operations at Gruyere, or are incompetent at running Gruyere the end result is the same, there isn't going to be much other interest in GOR 50% stake in Gruyere from any parties. Maybe in this case a 1005 ownership outcome for Gruyere, whether its Goldfields or GOR might actually result in the Gruyere asset performing better and unlock value for shareholders of both companies.