the letter, page-7

Hello sikadeer,

I am trying to stick to facts. This is pure analysis nothing else. Blind Chinese stooge LOL very funny I got a chuckle out of that.

You state: "cw, to say it's not a takeover because there's no bid for shares is disingenuous."

I disagree here is the fact, and the balance:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/takeover.asp#axzz28ZvlVXrF
Definition of 'Takeover'
A corporate action where an acquiring company makes a bid for an acquiree. If the target company is publicly traded, the acquiring company will make an offer for the outstanding shares.

I have read some other definitions that state purchase of 'controlling interest' is a take over - which is an alternate view.

Therefore I suggest that because only 3 Board seats are sought, that 4 are to remain with the current FML team. Therefore which is correct? My view is that this is more of a partnership than a take over and that the first definition is the more accurate in this case.

A consortium of Chinese SOE's and corporations could band together and get total control of FML if they wanted it. Nothing you or I could do to stop that because the Australian investment community have collectively undervalued FML. If there was some kind of conspiracy this would be how it unfolded not an open offer for you to vote on - clear fact - OK?

Aussie investors wanted their money elsewhere, lower risk and etc, their reasons - and then SGG comes along and wants to assist to build FML with the FML team - for shareholders.

It lowers risk, accelerates growth, enhances the investment in so many respects - some want this and some don't; go figure. All sorts of reasons, I am happy to let that go.

The big end of town will vote for this IMO. CW is this and that - sick of this, over it. Glenmore nailed it for me. So each to their own.

This is what it comes down to. Have all of a small pie (running tight and having to crawl ahead) or 49% of a robust bigger pie that will expand with far greater safety and far faster. The first option is far higher risk, something I believe is being missed big time on the "no deal" side of this debate. I prefer to speculate with greater safety with my money.

I have seen an ASX struggle along failing because they would not give up a large chunk of "ownership". In the end the pie shrinks. Pie = size of company in case the example is lost on anybody.

CW
DYOR&DD