What exactly is the criticism of management?I respectfully ask those who are knowledgeable about this company, what their assessment of management actions is, and why. The one objection I have read is that the intrinsic value of Fission exceeds that of Denison, and therefore the deal as proposed was unfair. However, I have not read many valuatons of both companies. So I put it to the board to assess each. It does appear to me that this asset is considerably undervalued. However, I would argue that DML is too. PLS appears at the moment to be a considerably better asset than any held by DML. However, the diversity of projects and the mill at Denison are worth something. Depending on assumptions about the long-term uranium price, permitting difficulty and cost, time to production and discount rate, perhaps you could make a case that FCU has a greater NPV. On the other hand, I do see merit in the argument of managements that the cash flow from the mill provide stability and survivability. In a market which is considerably oversupplied and may continue to be for several more years, where FCU has little cash and no means of generating it other than issuing shares at depressed levels (possibly much lower than today's) in some respects DML, although, one may argue, less undervalued, is a considerably safer speculation, because it can stand on its own two feet until the next cycle and without dilution. Given that incremental tonnage at PLS is not likely to excite the market, unless they discover a whole new zone or game-changer, Fission does seem vulnerable to neglect and despair, lower share prices, and either more dilution to keep the lights on and/or do costly drilling, or more predatory acquirors' overtures as this bear market drags on. Seniors will be interested, but either cannot afford to take on this project now, or have their hands full, and given my outlook for uranium, this condition is likely to persist for some time. Also, on management stewardship, I do not see a modest payoff for employees who would lose their jobs as being unreasonable. And unless a deal has transpired a huis clos, I don't see why the CEO, given that he ows a goodly number of shares, would do this deal if he didn't think it in the interest of shareholders. Thoughts?