I was glad I went and couldn't help commenting and questioning whilst there (I was the centre seated dude in the kinda green shirt) as agms are a good way to read the people not just the reports. I spoke to both sides and would agree with the comments posted above. I'm thinking now that the whole affair is just a small co that's found the going tough, run by guys I certainly don't think are crooks and, like many, have worn the cost heavily.
Being a fledgling affair the management are nice guys but only B grade corporate folks (no offence intended, but this gig aint BHP) and this is a first/learner directorship for most on, and those wanting on.
The animosity on show between directors and the GoodmanFitt posey obviously reflected the stress and frustrations of both sides, neither of which I think were unfounded but when I asked Olly to further massage his press release to reflect a nicer reconcilatory spirit he agreed and did so. I viewed that as a quality step, and if Gerard doesn't now lessen his bull-in-a-china shop approach he stands to loose cred with others who saw the show live. (hi gerard!) I'm undecided how I will vote for the egm and I would like to know as a part of that if the GoodmanFitt troupe only come as duo or if their interests are similar but no necessarily joined at the hip. I might call them both and ask.
All up, I think all the blokes on both sides seemed pretty decent chaps and as I said I think it's just that the company has found the going real tough that has caused so much angst for so many. But that can be the nature of these small companies and if we were all rich from it we wouldn't be yapping on about it all would we? Cheers, CRAIG from Brisbane
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
