Hi All,Don Taig said, to get something, you have to give...

Hi All,

Don Taig said, to get something, you have to give something away (or similar). This makes sense. it is normal business practice. I have been a proponent of the YES vote all along, however, I cannot form any worthwhile resolve around the 51% part of things. I want the cash, don't get me wrong, but if SD are in it for the profits, the gold or whatever else, then what can't they get for 49% that they can get for 51%. The 2% is control. I need more visibility around the 2% and what it does for us as shareholders. If this deal were based solely on commercial objectives, then all of these can be met with 49% investment in FML. If there is another motive, then you need the extra 2%.

I have posted many points favouring the YES vote, and I still believe they exist. I have not given enough creedance to the loss of control and why SD actually need 51% if their objectives are commercial only in nature (i.e. to grow FML and generate returns for the shareholders).

If the vote was today, I would probably toss a coin. This experience is not new in that the longer you have to ponder a decision, the more likely you are to question yourself.

Anyone else thinking about swapping teams on this one or am I alone?

Have a good night - erm - morning.