BT, in a general sense, removing someone from a deal close to...

BT, in a general sense, removing someone from a deal close to the deal's conclusion can be detrimental to the deal being concluded for a host of reasons, which I won't start going into here.

With respect to APG, I didn't say MT leaving will wreck any potential deals - I asked those supporting the motion to consider the risk. As for concluding a deal, read my post above, I didn't say one is definitely being concluded. I raised risks. Read my post.

You guys  - including you and False - who have been involved for ages may very well have a lot more knowledge of the ins and outs than me. However, you also both seem very emotional - lots of !!s - and I hope everyone is thinking through everything with a clear head and in the interest of all shareholders.

Re False 9, I don't at all appreciate or will put up with accusations of scaremongering and hidden agendas. If False9 has so much knowledge about APG then why doesn't he stick to imparting knowledge about it and to discussing and responding with all that so-called knowledge to the risks raised rather than posting like he did above, which seems to me like an attempt at bullying and also not something I'll put up with. You on the other hand are at least simply putting forward your point of view. Same with Clacko. Everyone is entitled to their point of view.

Anyway looks like you guys are going ahead with the motion regardless. As I said in my original post: "Now, to be clear, I am not saying that the motion is or isn't a good thing, on balance. It may be. It may not. I don't know the answer." I also asked for a "proper consideration of the issues and consequences". Hardly scaremongering or a hidden agenda. My agenda is simple: I have money invested, don't want to lose it and on the flip side, want to see APG and the share price recover substantially. Good for pretty much everyone I would think, if it happens.