Newspaper article, page-32

Gday Thunderdan,

I would suggest that you have answered your own conundrum in the second part of your post.

There is no problem with denial about the head in the sand, fair enough; But if your head is out and above the sand? My question would be. "If you also have trouble with blind faith, then do you not owe it to yourself to do some digging about why blind faith in this B&M is futile?" They have had their time, they have failed to deliver on their undertakings to shareholders. Their denial that they are actually the cause of the poor performance and outcomes is very typical of the self indulgent complacency we are seeing in the Chairman's NOM letter, for example.

ONE THING we all need to consider is whether the future of EGO under the existing B&M is going to continue in decline as it has over the past two-three years? Me? I can't find sufficient evidence to convince me that the existing outfit has the skills OR the temperment to turn the company around. Yet the Chairman sees fit to dismiss the merits of the three nominees for the vacant board position.

I just wonder, looking at the current situation in the face of the question you and Wab seem to be posing. ie: Could a new outfit do any better? Good question and fair enough. But although we may not have the absolute clarity to explain in exactly which ways they would perform better? I believe there are ample grounds to convince most rational people that the new Board couldn't possibly do any worse than what we currently have. We don't need a race to the bottom? We are already there!

Time for CHANGE!

So there is no way I am up for another year on blind faith in the current B&M. If I thought they could do the job? I would support them, but I am realistic enough to believe change will bring some uncertainty for a while, but at least I will be able to be confident the shareholders are being appropriately represented in all decisions made.