OBJ Lounge, page-11

Unlike OBJ board it appears BUD has commercial accumen and experience.
Agm after agm with OBJ - little more than flogging a dead horse with the same rhetoric.
Either the likes of Glyn step up or step out.
I am not interested in BG or Coty or any other suitor at this present juncture - rather for me the ability of the board to work the PG deals to shareholders benefit is the acid test rather than constant redirection like carnival magicians.
If they can't get this right, then no chance of getting anything else right either. No more excuses - the board can start representing and serving stockholder interests or instead step aside to allow some new talent that actually can.
If they are so good with tech, then spend 100% of their time in the tech and put some seriously competent commercial experts in charge of marketing and driving the company forward, including better communications. To maintain the status quo appears inefficient and ineffective - if the board is really serious, perhaps they should heed that - and any future directors be at least arms length away from the current board and include the opportunity for shareholders to consider their appointment instead of merely receiving an announcement after the fact with the expectation we would all meekly ratify at an upcoming agm.

Has anyone out there got any ideas as to how to pressure the board to make changes, or is it that everyone happy with the status quo.

There are only 3 months before the Agm so some pressure in advance recommended.

For example how about a paper explaining clearly the targets, which pass and by which metrics, and some analysis as to why failed targets missed? Or will the board just issue a simple motion to accept the targets have passed based on their recommendations only? How the hell would that be accountable, despite being par for the course for the board. Since we voted to accept the target mechanism 3 years ago, surely we are entitled to as many words and pages at the end of the period to understand why and by how much the targets were missed - if the targets included 20m revenue, then if this target missed the board should state exactly what was the revenue in that 3 year period and why the target missed - and by the way, research rebates do not consititute revenue since are not taxable.
Or how about a motion from holders that any future performance targets require presence of a clear metric and include 3 monthly updates on progress? Obj is extremely weak in agm documentation and unsatisfactory in explaining or providing any supporting information. For example whenever the time arrives to vote on extending a directorship, there is no information describing why, nor an assessment of that directors performance.

So why should I check the box and vote yes.
Maybe we should all vote no to each and every proposal unless includes clarification statements or at least some information by which to make an educated and sound decision!