TNG Change of Management | Update 35, page-50

I have a question for anyone has close ties to PB or NB

Given the momentum of this 249d and the fact the first only failed by a thin margin, does Paul acknowledge there is a substantial amount of shareholders who are unhappy with communication style and engagement? I am not talking about project delays (like he has stated is is part of the cause of this 249d). The rate of project deliverables are easily debatable with valid points on both sides. What I really want to know is what Paul’s thoughts are on the number of shareholders who are unhappy with his communication style and the quality of information provided. We are not talking 1 or 2 or even 10 shareholders that are unhappy. There are shareholders who are even voting against the 249d who have openly stated they are not impressed with the quantity or quality of communication.

Is there any acknowledgment at all that communication has not been of a standard satisfactory to a large majority of holders which has contributed to the current situation? If he does acknowledge this, than why doesn’t he address it with a plan on how this will be addressed (and I mean really address it, not a newsletter) and how he plans on being held to account on it. If he does not accept the volume of shareholders voicing this concern is an issue then why does he honestly think he the right person to be the CEO/MD for all shareholders? Does he honestly think this uprising is only associated with a small majority of shareholders when the last 249d was close to 50%?

To be clear, I am not talking about information that is commercial in confidence or information widely accepted by the ASX as not suitable for public release. I am talking about providing answers or information to questions which are generally seen as reasonable by the investment community. How does he see his mandate and legitimacy under these circumstances? I am struggling to understand why he thinks he is the best man for the job.