Its your interpretation of events,what do you want me to say?...

Its your interpretation of events,what do you want me to say?

Yes I was given a version of events as to why the deal did not proceed,which differs markedly from yours.

I wasn't a SHr at the time,so my knowledge over the whole scenario is almost nonexistent,save the version explained to me.
So I'm reluctant to discuss the merits or otherwise of your version of events.

Why weren't management brought to task earlier over this deal?

Why weren't 100 SHrs or 5 percent of the SHrs gotten together to force an EGM,with a view to have them thrown out?

I may be a minority with regards to salaries paid,but I'm of the view that good salaries bring good outcomes.
Whilst looking at the wifes and mine investment currently,its considerably down the crapper,we are not short term investors (rightly or wrongly),were more medium to long term investors.
I like to think I'm consistent,so I'm looking for management to sell shelf oil,and or sell all of VIC/P47,and bring in a major farminee into the Canning Basin.
The SAT decision is something I'll look at (as I'm sure others will) with naive eyes.
I would like to think the reasoning for the SAT CLAIM was sound on well known legal points of law,and not a pig and a poke exercise.
Prima facie we appeared to have a "good case",I trust the SAT decision will strip the carcass bare so everything is revealed.

Raider