Certainly a valid point, Rep, and I'm sure that Metachem would...

Certainly a valid point, Rep, and I'm sure that Metachem would want greater control over PGT being on their turf and all. Whether it be Tom Revy or another representative of EVG who is on the board of PGT, Metachem only retain 50% of the voting rights within the JV company.

The same would apply regardless of how many future shares Metachem potentially owns of EVG. Correct me, if I am wrong, but there seems to be some conflation here between the balance of the voting powers of the subsidiary company and ownership of the parent company.

I see your point, though, that its probably prudent that the EVG board and management accrue a greater stake in the company. Skin in the game matters most for SHs down the track where TOs are concerned, I guess. Tom Revy is a Top SH and has mutually aligned interests (one could safely assume), so is there any reason for him not to be on the PGT board unless it contravenes ASX regulatory guidelines now that he is no longer the MD? Surely, someone of Roundy's experience would be on top of this scenario... and somehow I suspect you know this already.