Focker, Have to disagree with your comments. I hold both PDY and...

Focker,

Have to disagree with your comments. I hold both PDY and AGU and have been vocal of late with what has to happen here.

Yes - the current crap going on within the PDY board is a distraction - but remember, the distraction was not of Padbury's making - Ingraham is behind the major upheaval of the board - have a look at the 249d's (by the way has anyone noticed that some holders calling the respective meetings have sold stock and some have bought stock - check out the latest Top 20 in July 2011 for the difference). Innes and Stirling were asked to resign to make way for much more experienced and connected directors and refused so the companies only option to keep the board at an appropriate number was to issue a 249d. In my opinion that is good business practice and in keeping with the normal operation of a publicly listed company - and it helps keep the directors fees to a minimum.

I believe Ingraham has wanted on to the board for some time and saw this as his opportunity to cause disruption for not getting his own way so decided to back Innes and Stirling. He obviously has some bad feelings for Stokes and Saunders - maybe it was because of the YRR eviction from their offices after PDY sold it's stake in YRR. The companies are no longer linked so there was no reason for YRR to be in the same building as PDY and AGU which also means Ingraham was no longer close to the action and may have been feeling a bit lonely and left out.

The joint venture IS placing a ceiling on the SP. Under a single entity, after a consolidation in the shares and the AGM out of the way the group would have effectively cleaned up their register, cleaned up the board and could negotiate deals with much more efficiency without the fear factor investors would have dealing with two separate companies on one project.

IMO the value of the project under one entitiy is significantly more valuable than under the JV as it opens doors for investors, financiers, offtakes etc...

AGU shareholders just need to make sure they don't sell out too cheaply. 3 for 1 seems the most talked abount number here under a takeover and I support that to a point. I am concerned with the order these things may come about and the questions that should be asked both of the boards and on this forum seem to be overshadowed by what is transpiring between the board and Ingraham.