It seems to me the statement says or implies:
1. A shares are not required for tax relief, but 75pc shareholding is.
2. FPS were going for a share issue to achieve that.
3. DFCSS said why not do this instead.
4. FPS agreed that was a simpler route.
5. Negotiations dragged on.
6. Merger has never been discussed or contemplated.
7. DFCSS are responsible for merger scare stories.
How much of that is true?