@tomboy what evidence do you have that the "MD" that you...

@tomboy what evidence do you have that the "MD" that you repeatedly refer to is the same entity that (a) bought all the shares in the CR, and (b) is the on-market buyer of all of the shares that AF is selling into the market, as well as the other trades going through the market at the moment.

If any "associated entities" (as defined) exceed 5% holding it must be disclosed promptly to the ASX. the volume of shares traded in (a) and (b) above far exceed 5%. There have been no ASX disclosures. Therefore "MD" as a single associated entity could not possibly exist unless it wanted to break the law - which I doubt.

You have a strong bias on the "MD = 1 entity" theory which is clouding your thinking.

If you think this through logically and make the same conclusion (or at the very least, consider an alternative scenario to the "MD = 1 entity" theory) then I think you might actually come up with a couple of other scenarios that have longer and stronger legs to run with.