Mr. Paul Maloney:

Yes. It was in that period that the board found it acceptable. I do not think the committee has the paper of 2 November. It gave the positives and negatives of that, and the note reads: "Following discussion of all issues involved the board agreed they would have no objection to Bernard McNamara disposing of his 33%." That followed an hour-long discussion. However, the board was not prepared to agree to a dilution of its currently agreed 40% for directors. This was crucial. The board would agree to an increase in the number of directors, etc. The board could see the value of a mitigation of risk, but we had already agreed the heads of terms which confirmed our community gain and planning issues, so Mr. Quinlan could not dilute those heads of terms. The criteria we had set down were already set in stone. That made the board more comfortable about Mr. Quinlan coming on board, because he could not have had an effect on our criteria as laid down in that multiple document. However, he might have had an effect on the dilution of our 26%, which we resisted.