Sorry, Hoov, I don't follow the logic here; you say Mac might consider an offer other than NOT's just so he can benefit personally by exercise of poison pill provisions, and further that these payments would have to be funded by NOT.

1) Poison pill only applies in a hostile take-over, the alternative to NOT seems to me to be non-hostile, so no poison pill

2)If FWR accepts a proposal from a third party, why and how would NOT be involved in making any payments to FWR directors?