In trying to think why the PO price was set so low. One possibility is that management actually wanted it that way. How so?

When considering shareholder structure they would know, as we do from the RVH poll, that the shares of retailers on this board alone constitute a significant proportion of the whole at 25% in 2016. This would suggest that retailers represents an even greater proportion given nonparticipants in the RVH poll and other retailers who do not follow this board, as much as 40 to 50% perhaps?.

Management might reasonably conclude, when considering the proportion of shares between shareholder classes, that the current proportion needs changing. For example it would make sense for the number of shares necessary for the corporation to control it's own destiny to be in the corporation's own hands or in 'friendly hands' rather than in the hands of petulant retailers suffering from investment fatigue.

If the degree of negativity displayed here is to be believed, and there are many disconsolate retailers just look at the thumbs up arch gloom Scary received for his most recent post (40 at the time of writing), could then management feel that the retail group represent a threat ,if they continue to allow retailers to hold the master hand when they, because of negativity, are prone to capitulate to the first low ball offer that comes along.

On timing, timing of the PO was of an essence, in that given that an inflection point is known to be approaching where the moment is also ripe for a rogue bid for the corporation to be made before it all becomes too expensive and more than a buyer might want to pay.

We then are left with how could the possibly ensure that new shares could be transferred (or rather the proportion of shareholder classes changed). Simple; sell 32M shares in a PO, where the effects are obvious and foreseeable are created by giving early warning of the PO without setting a price that will cause a run down on the SP and sets a low price for your 'friends' to buy, keep the warrants for their own future profit then selling the shares at discount effectively to Corporation 'friend's setting any losses claimed against tax. Thus allowing the corporation to effectively buy back its own shares at a discount.

Yes a cynical and probably illegal theory in reality which is why this post is entitled 'fantasy world' but nevertheless an explanation for such a disastrous PO from retailers point of view. I have no knowledge of the relative law but I have watched too many conspiracy movies and read too many books where such unbelievable moves were transacted during the financial crises in Iceland, Ireland, Greece and the UK by people we were meant to be able to trust.

On this basis , and as a long , the PO might yet prove the action that saved the $70 Club. even if currently it stinks,do management know they will be forgiven once we know what the know.

sula