Gee Mike, this is the longest rant I have read on this site. Just two points. You said the Government "Subsidise" I assume by way of the tax break on an initial investment? This is only deferring tax. When it is all sold up in ten years then profit is taxed, why infer its just Government money? Government have no money it is all ours, the taxpayers of Australia.
Also if you want these plantation razed then why not the native forest as well. You are not going to say that there are good left wing forests and bad right wing plantations surely?
Your story is riddled with bias and why not you are getting an absolute poultice from the greens subsidised completely by us taxpayers!

The only post so far is obviously from someone who just cannot see a mezzanine style rort when presented with one. And yes those funds that are being diverted are yours.

Gunns has finally been outed as a company that transforms subsidies into income and spurious bottom line profits sufficient up until now to persuade investors to part with their money.
Even with the financial smoke and mirrors of the MIS tax schemes and the access to subsidised state resources the whole shaky edifice will begin to unwind as Gunns’ share price sinks below $1.10 unless someone can see an opportunity in a distressed company with access to those taxpayer funded plantation resources.
If the pulp mill proposal does fall over, Gunns and its proponents will blame everyone but themselves for their predicament

The only problem I have with this article is it starts in the past tense - a bit premature, surely? As for Poyry 'selling' the pulp mill project to Gunns, are John Gay, Robin Gray and the rest such appalling bad managers that they really are not capable of doing their own sums? Seems hard to believe. I thought it would be up to the company to work out it's own risk assessment, not rely on the vested interest. Surely that is a state government speciality anyway?

Another spew by this author,

Heavy with spittle and inuendo but short of facts.

Mike, get a life

When will onlineopinion stop republishing such poorly researched and biased articles from Tasmanian Times?

The author's credibility is severely compromised when he claims "Andrew Bent has estimated the scale of subsidies provided to forestry by taxpayers."

Andrew Bent lived from 1790 to 1851; he was a printer, publisher and newspaper proprietor. In October 1810 he was convicted of burglary, but as was then usual his death sentence was commuted to transportation for life, he arrived at Hobart on 2 February. It seems that here he became an employee of George Clark who in 1810 had published the Derwent Star and Van Diemen's Land Intelligencer, the first but short-lived Tasmanian newspaper.

Thus the estimate and the rest of the six page article should only be treated as pure speculation!