Rural Funds Group's latest game of chicken with investors, page-17

I think RFP would be suicidal to vote against a proposal that would net them even a premium to their listed value on the NSX, when competitive market factors are against them resulting potentially in a 0 residual salable value if they cannot stay open. The only saleable item as I see it is the lease they hold, but want reduced.

RFF (the land lord) does not have to agree to reduce rent, especially as they have a buyer for the assets otherwise as it is currently priced. Nor is RFF obliged to upgrade the sheds to improve RFP's competitiveness either, if they feel there is better use for the capital elsewhere as they have stated. RFP is only profitable in the current environment in the even of that rent decrease.The lease which runs out very soon anyway, at which time RFF does not have to renew if they don't want to. I personally would be upset as an RFF shareholder if they pandered to such a request from RFP.

So would RFP like a residual value before lease expiry or would they potentially like none at all. They may not even make lease expiry the rate they are going, without rent relief. All they have is the value of their early release of lease in this environment, because the proposed buyer already knows how to run Chicken Broiling businesses & don;t need RFP's help to do it.
I think a point made earlier by another poeter about the fact the rent % is higher, simply because they wrote down the assets, there has not been much of an increase in rent in the last few years.

Those that have a long enough memory (& know the background of this), know RFP have made quite a bit of money over the years, back from when they were RFM Chicken Fund, & subsequently split into RFF (ASX) - joining the other RFM funds & unique to them - RFP (NSX), so RFP (ex RFM Chicken fund holders) can hardly feel hard done by. I remember that there was a small cohort of accountants (that had clients in it) at the time that wanted to sell these asset to another party (rather than allow the assets to list on dual exchanges) with a proposal to sell at 70% of its value at the time. They were on similar rental agreements to now, were returning well over 10% at the time (I think as high as 14%, but don't quote me on this), when the other assets (wine grapes, almonds..etc.) were lower yielding, but growing assets, not depreciating ones (or very low growth assets, but high yielding on average). This has been shown in the visual charts that RFM has used in multiple presentations & in Newsletters on a shaded scale of asset types & characteristics. from high growth/low yielding (eg cattle) to low growth/high yielding (eg chickens). This organised group failed thankfully for the other investors & instead netted those invested infinitely higher returns as a result of action proposed by RFM & voted on at the time.

The other funny thing, as eluded to above, is that many RFP investors are actually RFF investors as well, especially if they have not sold one or the other separately since listing. So might vote in favor overall anyway between both their holdings;

I personally think the sale is in the best interest of both sets of shareholders, which in fact could well be one & the same group in many if not most instances, as I said. Depends if they were long term investors or not.

There's my 2 bobs worth, for what its worth