I do trust Mr Sheard a great deal. I trust him to make the...

I do trust Mr Sheard a great deal.

I trust him to make the decisions that he thinks is in the best interests of CAP and its shareholders.

I trust him to select and invite people to join the board who he thinks will add experience and value.

However, I'm a little confused.

You say that ASI/Silvergate nominees would exclude themselves from any vote regarding Hawsons in the event that they were on CAP's board and acquired BMG's interest in Hawsons.

Therefore, you must also trust Mr Sheard to make decisions that he thinks are in the best interests of all shareholders.

However, it is my understanding that you wish to remove two directors because they were hand picked by Mr Sheard and you are concerned they would always vote with him (not sure if that's exactly how you said it, but that's my understanding).

You say that "In the context of a listed company, i can think of few if any situations in which 3 people making decision is better than 5. However in this case, i don't think it actually makes much if any difference at all". If you don't think it makes any difference, why put CAP and its shareholders through the EGM - or at least at this point in time? I could see a stronger argument for your approach if you were unable to acquire BMG's interest in Hawsons.

And I am not trying suggest that ASI/Silvergate are looking to take advantage of the board seats to the detriment of shareholders. However, CAP has seen its fair share of disputes and distractions from doing what it should be doing and I would not like to see it caught up in more disputes or distractions because of decisions made where there could be a percieved or actual conflict of interest.

In my mind, if ASI/Silvergate are successful in their proposal to remove to directors and nominate two of their own, then ASI/Silvergate needs to either withdraw any interest that they may have in purchasing BMG's interst in Hawsons or exclude themselves from any board vote regarding Hawsons.