To the second part of your post first. Yep, where the scenario is "in the absence of etc etc" and if one does not wish to call the bluff of the great STO, I agree to your logic - one needs the other in much the format you describe, bit like a good 69'er if I may be so crude (SG? NO illustrations please, you'll get us both thrown out!)
I think our view of the investment, with all it's angles isn't so much different, I wouldn't vote NO lightly, and remain fluid, as I hope I've always made clear, in respect to new evidence or change of landscape.
To your first part, the shareholders B & M. Whilst I had gone into several of the entities, I hadn't yet with Budside, so thanks for your work there.
It's certainly more encouraging that they hold, regardless of motivation isn't it?
Bit surprised at that "report" from M, probably better I talk with you off air re that.
As to the "bitter taste" if they meekly go up the food chain Yaq, I think even us red raggers, Nervy, Bundy & Lilae are pragmatist enough to envisage that may be out of our hands, but all eyes are focussed on the first and every bit of news 'til then, and 'til then the NO vote remains a treasured tool to strike fear and trepidation into the heartland of STO/ESG cronyism...'cos THEY don't want this offer slipping away any more than you do, or I.
Which leaves me just to challenge SG to do something with the S & G song, Slip Slidin' Away. "...you know the nearer your destination the more you slip slidin' away etc.."
Have fun all, ''Lilac
ESG Price at posting:
75.5¢ Sentiment: ST Buy Disclosure: Held
