payback, page-2

Well if you read about the court case it does appear very personal. Map lawyers calling for Fitz's tax assessments etc.

However I quite like the claim by MQG capital barrister that ''We are just not on the sidelines cheering and booing - we are central to this commercial agreement if the resolutions are passed,'' he said.

First time they have really admitted that they and probably not the independent directors are central to this process. By the way independent is totally in jest.

Given what is going down now MAP are having to disclose these documents that are relevant to the internalization and trigger events.

There are some very good articles out there and they all suggest that there is a lot we are not being told. Like we can claw our 345m back if both MAP and MQG agree that its correct to do so. Does that mean if MQG dont agree we dont get it back. Simply put the claim that MQG will suffer substantial loss if this delayed 2 weeks is tantamount to saying they want the 345m in their half year results. If no meeting on 30 September than can they accrue the benefit.

I dont support (currently on the evidence) Fitz but I dont see why we dont just wait and get an independent consultant to advise - Certainly not KPMG who havent covered themselves in glory. I doesnt appear that these trigger agreements are all in Oz as stated by a Map official if they are not than how did KPMG do their fair and reasonable. Or was it a case of not looking too closely. Given that the deal seems to get better and better for MAP than it suggests that the deal must be very one sided already. We haven't even voted yet.

This deal really suggests that Map should get someone like maybe Investec (no love lost there is it) to look at all the documents and advise a route that's true independent review.

One thing that does get lost in all of this is how much we can trust the present management if this is the way shareholders are treated. This really seems like contempt or dismissal. You tell us that MQG will refund 345m the entire purchase price if we get hit by higher interest rates in next 6 months but you dont tell us that that is -

"that any payment from MacBank will only be triggered if both MacBank and MAp agree.

And not simply agree, but rather curiously agree that it is "in the best interests of MAp and Macquarie".

A news reporters view (Terry McCrann Herald sun):

"The whole point of this `indemnity', sorry FDC, was supposedly to provide some protection for MAp and its investors if someone else -- one or more banks -- seized the opportunity to hit MAp with higher interest charges.

So that, one would presume, MAp and MacBank would be responding to such an event that was either valid or not. This seems to suggest that MacBank could simply deny the event reality.

In any -- what's the word? -- event, we come back to the basic deal failure. If there's no risk, what's the justification of paying MacBank $345 million when there's no obligation to do so.

And if there is a risk, the $345 million `indemnity' is not sufficient; and needless to say the original $100 million was even

less so.

Ah, but according again to Trevor, MacBank is providing MAp with "assistance" to ensure that the internalisation doesn't trigger an interest cost.

So what is he saying? Two things one might reasonably conclude.

That MacBank would not provide such assistance without the payment? Does the word extortion spring to mind?

Apart from the rather basic issue of fiduciary duty. For as long as MacBank is being paid by MAp investors, it has a very clear obligation to `manage' in their best interests. And that includes the entire provision of "assistance" to ensure no internalisation cost is triggered by its departure.

Secondly, Trevor is saying that they, the independent directors, couldn't do it without MacBank. Why not -- especially as it's such an unlikely event anyway?

If they lacked the seemingly fairly basic skills, couldn't they buy them cheaper than $345 million?

A word to the, well, Trevor -- and Stephen: put down your spades."

This is very interesting and really not the first time that someone has argued that this whole deal makes no sense. Why is MQG so determined to get this 345m booked into this half and are there other write-offs that this will cover. You could go on speculating but it could be interesting to be in court on monday afternoon.

I hold Map but will never hold MQG preferring to hold other Merchant bankers shares not listed in OZ.

I hope you have voted you may think it wont count but what have you got to lose other than more than the 345m you are already paying to MQG if this goes through.