i still think there is just minimal value as at this time on my...

i still think there is just minimal value as at this time on my best guess of resale values for assets.

i do not believe in the credibility of the directors appointed valuer of the assets particularly in the present practice on putting values on land on a post harvest basis when littered with tree stumps chopped off 6 inches above the ground when future investors in tree farms managed by gtp are in my opinion unlikely to volunteer their cash given the outcomes experienced by their intrepid tree farming investors to date. ( just imagine grubbing cost of one tree stump , let alone grubbing 400 stumps or so per acre which would be required to turn the land into usuable pasture). (The australians have been ingenious in inventing the stump-jump plough. I eagerly await news of the invention of the stump-jump hay rake and the stump-jump hay bailer.)

Note for information it is believed the timbercorp valuer values assets on a future rentals basis not current resale values for timbercorp assets and that there is a massive divergence in the values depending on the valuation assumptions used.(ref the timbercorp tod offshoot)

the land post-harvest should possibly be on the liability side of the balance sheet not the asset side, particularly when considering the requirements likely to be required in the harvest plan approved by the authorities which is required before harvesting ( remediation requirement section if it is not to be put back into trees).