And that really is the point here, isn't it? You hit the nail on the head, Elit.
I'm not sure that enough votes can be mustered to gain a majority, what with the eligable directors' and insiders' holdings, but a strong showing by regular shareholders would really give the board reason to consider the situation.
Perhaps it would be enough to give them pause regarding the current raft of EGM proposals, it seems a fairly universal feeling that some of those are over-reaching ....
I found it disappointing that they would propose the 20% discount for directors' share purchases, after being forced to remove proposals for pay increases last year and having the remuneration report voted down. Perhaps the same thing will happen at the EGM (if the proposals are not varied). They just don't seem to get the point regarding the perception of the directors' actions - and demanding a discount gives a very poor indication of how things stand.
There is some feeling, reading these threads, that damage would result from spilling a CEO, and that there are some who are concerned by the thought of participating in this. The other side of that coin is to ask "How much damage is the BOD doing in the process of putting up continuous resolutions which are rejected by shareholders?" The results of the votes have been reasonable, the resolutions have not; this gives an ongoing negative view of the company at a corporate level - and that is the fault of the BOD.
There is no need to belabour the poor decisions made regarding finance over the last 8 months or so ... the share price tells the story. The fact that devotees like Elphamale have moved on just reinforces that.
If something is not done, these proposals will continue to be put forward, these decisions will continue to be made, and the board will continue to embarrass themselves and the company. Shareholders taking action does not look great, as it reflects on the board, but it tells outsiders that they are devoted enough to the company to take action where they see it is needed. Loyal shareholders who care that much are valuable when things get bad, if it wasn't for them, the SP would probably be half what it is now.
So if Athan is removed the damage would stop right now, and a new director with greater ability would perhaps begin the task of rebuilding bridges and strengthening corporate governance. If Athan is not removed , a strong enough message may have been sent that he starts rebuilding bridges and improving corporate governance. Perhaps he will learn enough that they don't put up a remuneration report at this year's AGM that produces a second strike and forces a board spill.
These sorts of things are never pretty, but the rules exist and are absolutely necessary to ensure that directors can be brought to task by those suffering from their lack of corporate competence. I think that Growlers' proposal is excellent, and more power to him for putting it up.
Expand
(20min delay)