BOD removal process, page-14

I don't have any objection to the Directors, even though no sign of any of the new ones earning a cent for OBJ (except for Steve replacing a royalty deal that was so bad, he probably couldn't believe it).

It's just the size and cost of the BOD relative to the present size of OBJ that is at issue.

Either a smaller BOD, is required, or a bigger company. A smaller BOD requires removing some or all of the present BOD.

The BOD, naturally, proposes a bigger company and it makes sense as an inescapable prgression from constructing such a big BOD in the first place. They didn't make a big BOD and then suddenly, realise 'hey, you know we're going to need a bigger boat'.

Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to at least want to discuss the alternative because we now have a more satisfactory and more profitable royalty deal and Bodyguard is ready to go.

I would prefer to know what plans the BOD has in advance, beyond being told the eventual plans will be 'bold' and 'ambitious'. Touching on the broad possibilities is not a plan.

The pro-acquisition group say we should trust the new Directors to plan and execute brilliantly, without knowing what the plans are.

I appreciate the basic proposition that NS is making a profit, but want to learn more about the shape it is in and its revenue trend. If it is just an add-on, fine just say so and we can evaluate it accordingly. If there really are 'synergies' what exactly are they?

For example, do they mean that because NS imports and sells vitamins, this means OBJ could at some indeterminate point in the future, develop and market a new vitamin patch that the marketing geniuses on the BOD could not sell unless they spent $85m on NS?