email response, page-14

Hi Reiner, I used the wrong word in that instance, I meant controlling stake for board direction not T/O blocking stake. Yes 30% is a blocking stake, but with a guarantee of no further rise in holding then it's not a threat to institutional investment IMO. perhaps it would discourage rivals trying a T/O.
I agree there was lots of flack given to the Yes camp, mostly early on & it is understandable that the guys have stopped posting. Davo does have a point though, the Yes camp have only addressed what great things can be done with a fat wallet; nobody is arguing that. The issues which the no votes hold have at best been answered by saying we need to have trust & hope that we wont be screwed over. That simply is not good enough for me. I have been driven by the BOD into ticking all the boxes against them & this deal, the envelope is sealed & I expect I'll post it this evening. Initially I was only against the deal; but I believe this deal is for the benefit of the directors not the shareholders. Thats just my opinion & my vote. If i cant see the wood from the trees; then it's the BOD's fault for not showing me it.
I also feel misled in their mantra of remaining debt free & hedge free, this has obviously gone out the window with wishing to access Chinese banks. They took the development money for organic growth & splurged it or CRE, anther redirection at the flip of a coin. They just want a bigger company at any cost; how many times have we been told of the great increases in production while failing to mention the commensurate great increases in the registry; just about every media release I can think of. Along with the consistently pathetic lack of communication the meaningless quarterly expenditure forecasts, the yet to be explained changes to cost methodology last Dec.
My patience has run out.