Firstly, well done on getting this to be brought to the media's...

Firstly, well done on getting this to be brought to the media's attention. I too had no luck in finding an outcome of the meeting, but i guess the media has better links then us. So thank you for that first of all.

My initial thoughts on the article:

- Good that there does not appear to be any actual push to put CNP into receivership, i see this as good as i do not want to delay the CER /CNP split any more then is necessary.

- Though it mentions that it is likely that properties from the CAWF portfolio are looking to be sold, and it mentions that CER is a part owner in some of these. It does not mention either way what CER would do?

I don't see this as a bad article at all, it says that the banks are not going to force centro (CER or CNP) to go into receivership, it also eludes to the fact that there are more buyers in the market then there was in 08, which can only be seen as a positive thing.

My main issues: I thought the meeting was to discuss CNP not centro. The mentioning of CER's properties and NTA concerns me that either the reporter does not differentiate between the two entities or (what i hope isn't the case) the lenders done differentiate between CER and CNP. Again this can be seen to have two causes: they don't see CER as been better then CNP (and just treat them the same) or they have better details then the public and believe the actual separation of the two entities is a LONG way off. This slightly worries me.

Overall what is printed i see as positive. But as with everything centro related raises questions (sigh)

Thanks again for the article
Shmi