Best way to reject this loan share & increase in fee pool is to show below table to Rob and Garry individually... IMO.
Can anyone think of why 20m loan shares are proposed by board? why not 5m or 25m or 15m or 10m? what would be your guess guys? read below table my guess and why Rob & Garry should read before they decide on their voting... IMO.
If you add 10m of JW's loan share plus 20m of additional loan share then total % ownership will be 1.88%+3.76% = 5.64%, so basically it is magic 20m figure that will give power to those with 5% ownership to call for AGM/EGM if required to remove any of the sitting directors subject to approval by shareholders (all of us) and as we all know that retail holder only has power if they vote in one direction else the power is in the hand of other major holders.. IMO.
Now, see table below which is results from last AGM. 70% voted against previous chairman and 65% against the director which is not a work of retail holders in my opinion because not a single comment I remember on this forum talked about not to vote for Warwick and Richard.
If you then look at the option for Warwick was voted down by 80% while for Richard 85% voted against even though they are asking for 2m options with REAL KPI that could benefit shareholders unlike the freebies requested this time...IMO.
Now, why this is important for Gary and Rob and not for JW is because in last voting Rob's options were rejected and hence easy to assume he doesn't have enough of mates with voting power to decide what happens in AGM else he would have got his option even last time... IMO
Gary didn't have as many as 13m shares which he holds now , but if he has influence at that time then he would be able to get through resolution 7 easily... IMO
So, based on this I let everyone to make-up a mind on who has the power of influence to those with major holdings.
So, 5% voting power will be vested with 2 or 3 member in the board JW+ any other two (new or existing) and they will be able to call for election or influence the decision making anytime things goes against the grand plan which we don't know if it exist... IMO.... !
As for the last resolution 7 in last AGM, the voting was very narrow and hence it is important to stick to gather for retail holders this time as if few of us vote to increase that then it will open a door to get more board member who we don't know yet and give the power in a hand of few... IMO.
so If I am Rob or Gary in particular then I would vote against all resolution in this EGM... because what happened in last AGM can be repeated in future against them as well.. IMO.
My opinion is based on number of assumption and it may not be true reflection of the situation so please do your own research before voting and feel free to comment on different situation that you may think is possible.
@rookstar &
@fitnfam thing i didn't get technically as to why we have roughly 100m shares validly appointed in last AGM when total outstanding shares were more then 350m? even if people don't participate in voting still abstain numbers are less then 1m except for item no. 3.
(20min delay)