I think you need to go back further. The CR mechanism may be OK...

I think you need to go back further.

The CR mechanism may be OK on paper under some circumstances but the bottom line is it needed SH participation "en mass" to work. So whether or not the complaints about the mechanism are right or wrong and how many feet are being self-shot, IMO, isn't the problem. The problem started a while back with the previous CR which created the distrust that (seemingly) resulted in this poor CR take up by SH.

So after the last Patts CR, SH were pissed. But it was OK to a point as the ML was going to be the recovery.

But it wasn't … obviously as those in the know knew there was a lack of money and that "ring fence" wasn't even fully funded let alone a working scenario.

That's the point … the money men knew that money was tight, the brokers knew the ML wasn't to be chased as it was just a relatively small hurdle before the big one - the CR.

Nth Ireland announcement was also a red herring and another case of directors with expectations beyond their means … Champaign taste and beer budget.

So … it's like any corporate plan, battle plan for that matter … the strategy on paper had to match the assets on the ground or the consumer promise had to match the consumer predisposition.

When the CR came out so complex, vague and undefined … SH had finally given up on the board … what we have now is a battle plan with the troops dug in the wrong way with bullets that don't match the calibre of their weapons. The battle plan might be OK … but there's no trust in the board/officers.