I wonder if you missed your mark with audience targeting this time around, given you've added weight to the stupid argument of Kevin's that the need to construct a road is a significant risk. Pish posh. A trivial matter. Likely already permitted and if it is, Winsome could get started on that ASAP.
So Kevin is onboard with you, or maybe, you are onboard with Kevin.
And once again, back to your persistent argument that Winsome needs others. I am yet to see your response re: disclosures of your interests in Azimut, Comet and Midland. It seems that if you were a shareholder or had an interest in any of those 'companies' what you suggest makes perfect sense.
Winsome does not need any of them and you know it. They on the other hand, at this point in the cycle, could sorely do with Winsome.
I do not see the quid pro quo, particularly as those companies are all effectively rent seekers. They have land and they intend to sit on it. Not one of them will spend any material money working out if they have something to add value to some cooperative proposition.
And I do not see how there is material risk for Winsome to mitigate but regardless, how is it that these other lifestylers mitigate any such risk? So we are pretending risks do not exist, are we? Or are you pretending that overwhelming risks exist, like Kevin? I think we know which.
I would suggest the shareholders of those rent seekers sell their shares and invest in the company that is taking the task on - the unicorn on fertile ground. What a coup it would be for those companies to capture some of the uplift from all of Winsome's heavy lifting.
(20min delay)