As I understand it the board still needs unit holders to approve...

As I understand it the board still needs unit holders to approve it. That's my vote and everyone has that right.

The argument that where would Map be without MQG is not relevant. If I develop a piece of land the fact that its a good package is what I am paid for when I sell it off. After that the new owners don't owe me anything.

The management agreement is for services and the fees are tied to the process. You cannot base the valuation on the strongest period of the bull market and take it all upfront.

Just a day after the announcement and Map has already had to try and defend it. I have not seen anyone having to jump in and try to defend a good deal this quickly before.

I think we are going to see so much noise that something will happen. You misread me - I am not opposed to MQG being the manager I want them to find solutions and would rather that when they have found the solution that part of that deal is we all get out for various prices. Why should they take there money off the table now when the management fees are dropping. There is no conflict at present there isn't any financier who would allow them to gear up and add more assets.

This is just a bad deal for Map holders and if the directors don't listen than we have to vote. Its only in the past year that I have seen the directors starting to resign before the vote as they see shareholders starting to hold themselves accountable for their actions. Also the remuneration votes seem to be having its impact as people are having to take note. Things are moving and over time the ball will move faster.

Refer Business spectator today. In this article the quote from the Map director even asserts that MQG is a 27% shareholder which they are not until the vote is passed.

The true test is if you didn't have MQG would you vote in favour of this.?