I think that a bit too much emphasis is being given to the fact that an ?industry? meeting was held, and to focus solely on a proposal to raise recommended retail does not display the whole picture. At the same time FP and AM deserve some credit for both their entrepreneurship and cycling-advocacy over the years. Their businesses employ many, benefit an exponential number of service providers, and they are passionate about the sport. Does FP and AM have enough trust banked in the public's trust account? I believe that they have, despite a hefty withdrawal from that account as a result of the somewhat improper management of this ill-fated meetings, and the fallout that resulted. It is quite possible that the discussion at the meeting could have bordered on anti-competitive price fixing ? a similar question was seemingly asked according to the minute - but the consistent explanation furnished by stakeholders assure us that it was not intended as such. There was certainly crappy minute keeping, that quite possibly did not record what the real gist of the meeting was. If you read the minutes (again) you have to admit that the minutes are inconsequent, and skips a lot. Many un-minuted questions are seemingly answered, and the format of the minute is riddled with typing- , spelling mistakes and formatting errors. Andrew ? in fact - seems quite furious at being mis-quoted... The crux of the matter is that there is no real price fixing model contained in either the minutes of the meeting, the email of Fritz, or the knee-jerk postings made by AM & FP on the Hub. I looked for it, and although the minute looks somewhat damning , it does not really collude an industry to ransack the consumer. In fact, the minuted proposal is somewhat unclear. The fact of the matter is that many bikeshops are not making it, primarily the smaller guys, and they need help. In truth, there is nothing wrong with arranging a raise of the recommended retail price, allowing the opportunity for a slightly higher markup to the retailer (which FP & CL said they would be using, and urged others to do so as well). Ironically - as a result of their increases - some shops would be able to even lower (relatively) their asking prices! Fritz' meeting could have been better managed - sure - but it is also important to see it for what it was seemingly intended. At the meeting itself, concerns were raised whether such 'agreement' would constitute anti-competitive behaviour, but Fritz was of the opinion that it was not. A suggestion was minuted that legal advice ought to be gained on the matter, but what is absolutely, abundantly clear, is that it was not. This was a mistake, for legal opinion would have advised that caution be applied, and surely the "minute' would have been remedied. The formal suggestion of raising a recommended retail price is not really price fixing - as (a matter of fact) it can have exactly the opposite effect - but the situation could very easily be misinterpreted, especially seen in the light of Fritz's minuted comment of ?discounters? that could eventually be pissing him off. It turns out Fritz Pienaar is human, and frustrated by 'discounters'. Allow him that, but not everybody at that meeting would agree with such sentiment. In a certain sense all shopkeepers are discounters. The unfortunate act was that the juicy titbit 'got published', ironically, by himself! With hindsight - being an exact science - it turns out that a couple of shopkeepers and their suppliers made a hash of a meeting, because they simply underestimated what the effect was of what they were trying to do. Did the meeting try to swindle the industry for their own benefit? No, they say they didn?t. They tried to help the lbs around the corner, and the retailer with accounts past 180 days. All in all, it seems possible. In any event, those who try to help others will be appropriately punished.