egm results now trading halt

TTY's at 37% and OLY has called a trading halt, so maybe someone is going to have a crack, which makes the results of Friday's EGM even more curious.

According to OLY, Resolution 1 was passed unanimously (election of new director Goodall) resolutions 2, 3,6,7,8 were passed on poll and resolutions 4 and 5 were not carried following the poll.)

First time I have seen a unanimous passing of a resolution when there were 2m proxies against, but I digress.
It is apparent from Resolution 8 in which there was an abstention of 40,442,871 votes against that this was TTY.

It would appear that TTY voted this number in the polls on resolutions 1 through 7, so that the issue of options to Randall, Gazzard, Baxter and Goodall were supported by TTY and the issue of options to Lockett and Walters were not.

What is quite clear is that without the support of TTY, the issue of options to Randall, Gazzard, Baxter and Goodall would not have been carried as they did not have sufficient support, yet both Lockett and Walters would have got up, but for the vote against by TTY.

Well, Monty Python is getting more like Alice in Wonderland.

Why would TTY vote in support of the issue of options at a time of it making a takeover bid? TTY shareholders would probably like to know, as potentially these options may have value and why is the company effectively increasing the value it must pay to acquire OLY? How can this be in the interests of shareholders of TTY? I wonder?????

One could suggest that the directors of OLY who have secured the options are now placed in a very curious position. By the magnanimous gesture of the bidder they have received benefit by way of the grant of the options.

By any ethical measure TTY should have either abstained against the issue of options or against each and every director's grant of options, but to support some and not others is absolutely bizzare.

Clearly Lockett still has a few mates on the register, but is the Big Guy still a mate?