Well, what an interesting AGM.
Much more lively than last year, and great to see the turn out, with many investors engaging the board first hand.
It was fantastic to meet many of you and appreciate your efforts and support in helping get the message across to the board that Sayona HAS to improve in many areas to reach it's full potential.
I have been off the comms as I got stuck in Brisbane Thursday night.
I was booked on the 4pm flight back to Melbourne, which was delayed, then delayed, then delayed some more....then cancelled...
many of you have probably been there...
By the time they cancelled the flight there was only 1 flight back and it was full, so 180 of us were shipped off to the Sofitel, Mercure etc...wherever they could get a room for the night. So I didn't get home until 2 pm Friday....a very long couple of days indeed...in the same clothes...
You guys have heard some feedback so far, so I wont rehash what has already been said, but more cover my take aways from the AGM.
Many interesting investors there this year, travelling from around Australia and even as far as Korea, with varying opinions and differing concerns.
And my apologies to our Korean friend, who in the heat of the moment I stated he was from North Korea. I only realised when I played the recording back...so if you are reading this, sorry for that mate.
Let me get the brutal stuff out first.
Buckler has to go.
Up for re-election 2024, and they are now all on their first strike.
He fell asleep a few times and could barely stay conscious.
I had a couple of questions for him, but once he started mumbling to the rest of them to wrap it up, I never got there, and was getting ignored at this stage with @underratedcat.
In fact the whole side of our room was cut off.
I think they were the only words he mumbled that day...wrap it up....time to wrap you up buddy...
He was displaying all of his 76 years .....and the years have well and truely caught up with him.
I wouldn't mind the age so much if he showed vigour and focus, but he barely displayed a pulse.
I thought he may have been one of those older, supremely wise, super passionate guys who are incredibly impressive when met in real life.
But what we got was someone who was barely conscious, did not want to be there, not present and clearly not interested...he was only there because he had to be.
We were going to call for the defib at one stage!
He proved to me on Thursday that he is dead wood, and his prime is well and truely behind him....with no more left to offer.
If anyone can enlighten me on what his function is and how he adds any shareholder value, please let us know.
He has to go, and be replaced with someone who can add value, independance and a modern, current viewpoint, on how to deal with the many challenges going forward.
Crawford has to go.
He has changed quite a bit in the last 12 months.
He is looking a lot more frail, has lost some weight and was looking a little overwhelmed.
I thought he would chair the meeting like last year, but I guess JB didn't even trust him with that...which speaks volumes.
The accuracy of communications from his end through the year have improved, but that is due to the hiring of Dougal and his refreshed input into this area of the business.
I attribute none of the improvements to Crawford.
With one foot out the door, he seems to be stuck in this perpetual retirement loop, and similar to many parts of Sayona, nothing seems to happen.
Part of his continued tenure includes using his voting rights to tow the line for Brown and Buckler. He still holds a very significant holding at around 1.5%, and his continued tenure is as much strategic, as it is beneficial as an ally to Brown and Buckler.
He was very vague and non comital about his retirement...so who knows when it will happen?
When pushed on the VR clause, he failed to understand the significance of what was written in front of him, and accept the very black and white interpretation of what clause 14 is stating.
I had Sayona's legal council sitting next to me. Whether they had planted her there or not, I cannot be certain....
Lovely lady, can't quite remember her name, and she argued the point for a moment.
I read it back to here and pointed that the statement does not state that VR meetings would be excluded, rather it stated Sayona may choose to hold them, even down to an audio only level, which was at complete odds to what the explanatory statement for this clause states.
And I quote-
14.1 Use of technology
(a) The Company may hold a meeting of its members at two or more venues using any
technology that gives the members as a whole a reasonable opportunity to participate.
(b) A virtual meeting of members may be held using any technology, by means of audio
communication or audio and visual communication, that:
Page 15
(i) allows for all members participating and constituting a quorum to
simultaneously hear each other throughout the meeting;
(ii) gives the eligible members a reasonable opportunity to participate in the
proceedings without being physically present in a determined place; and
(iii) gives the eligible members the ability to ask questions of the auditor and about
management.
(c) If a virtual meeting of members is held by means of audio communication or audio and
visual communication under section 14.1(b):
(i) an eligible member simultaneously participating in the meeting is taken to be
present at the meeting; and
(ii) the chairperson of that meeting will not be required to determine a place at
which the meeting was held.
She conceded, and agreed it needed to be re-written, even though that is not their intent.
So just put it in black and white if that is the intention...simple.
Then out of left field, she said ' I have read and followed you on HC and am a big fan of what you write', or I like what you write...something to that effect. She actually floored me with that, I was extremely flattered, and was totally not expecting her to agree with me then compliment me.
I thanked her politely but had to take a minute to regroup......
At least she could see the issue and agreed to re-visit it, rather than the bumbling old man on the stage who belligerently refused to accept what was written on the page and only rebutted with 'That's your interpretation'
At least he did eventually concede it needs to be redrafted.
No independance, no objectivity, no strategy and wavering ability.
As for the Governance Statement debate, Crawf added zero comments and conjecture to the debate....neither did Lucas, who I thought would at least offer some sort of justification.
This is also part of his responsibility, yet he added nothing, and allowed JB to face the stark realistaion that they are not compliant with nearly every clause in there....and they are the words on the page, stated by Sayona...NOT COMPLIANT...again and agin...
As harsh as it sounds, his prime is well and truly behind him and he has to go.
Phillip Lucas
He rubbed a couple of investors up the wrong way on the day, probably more to do with the lawyer energy he was presenting than anything else, as well as cutting a coupe of people off.
I asked the direct question of impartiality, citing the previous relationship with Brown and Buckler from Altura.
His independance was vehemently defended by Brown, Buckler again said nothing.
The defence they used was his personal and professional reputation speaks for itself, and in no way do they believe he is not independant.
Personally, I don't buy it.
I accept the fact that having legal council as a NED is a good move, but I doubt he will challenge Brown and Buckler, the hand that feeds him if push comes to shove....he will tow the line.
After the removal of Lynch, his appointment was made in haste, to keep the board level at the required governance levels and was not a thorough and protracted search, as it is now for further directors, a chair and a new CEO...and CFO if you include Crawf.
Board renewal, which we have been promised from the Governance Statement October 13th 2022.-
2.4 A majority of the board of a listed entity should be independent directors
Sayona is not compliant with this recommendation. The Company recognises the importance of
independent Directors and the external perspective and advice that they can offer.
The current composition of the Board is considered appropriate, but the Company is currently reviewing
the composition and size of the Board, with additional independent directors expected to be appointed
over the next 12 months.
2.5 The chair of the board of a listed entity should be an independent director and, in particular
should not be the same person as the CEO of the entity.
Sayona is not fully compliant with the recommendation. At this point in the Company’s development, it
is not considered necessary to have a permanent board chairman, with the role at board meetings being
rotated. The Chairman is not the same person as the CEO
So how has his appointment been more important, than a chair and further INDEPENDANT NED's?
It seems it was a further bolstering of the support ranks for Buckler, to assist in the removal of Lynch more than anything else.
Lucas also runs a smallish boutique firm in Perth, with a handful of other partners, which would consume the majority of his time.
The question that also arises is the capacity of this firm to fend of an aggressive attack.
With Altura, they collectively failed to secure the future of the company.
Will the same happen with Sayona?
If a team from PLL tries an M&A move in earnest, can Lucas have all the other partners drops all their existing cases to focus on us?
Probably not, and would have to employ the services of another firm to ensure the firepower necessary to survive such an onslaught.
Could this be done in time?
Hopefully, we will never have to find out the hard way....because then its usually too late.
He had a 65% for vote which is a pass, but in general terms across the corporate world, is a failure for a director.
So his value, his worth and his contribution to Sayona and its shareholders remains to be seen.
And yet another member of the board, that did not debate the governance failures which plague us.
As some would say, that is right in his wheelhouse..and what he is employed to know, comprehend and rectify.
But during the AGM, not a peep.
James Brown
More impressive in real life, than the limited amount of exposure we have seen about him through official channels.
He spoke and conducted himself professionally, and well and truely carried that board at the AGM.
Without him there, I am not sure what the other 3 would have done.
A very good grasp of the operational side of the business, and a holistic view of the lithium sector in general.
Quite conservative in his views for the company going forward, which is understandable, given the current climate in the lithium sector, and his previous experience at Altura.
However, I still have reservations about his tenure going forward, particularly after they stated a new CEO is probably a year away, with the chair to be sourced first.
We have seen how slow they are in board appointment and renewal...its already 1 year and 2 months since first promised, then 2 NED's promised before the AGM.....still nothing.
I actually did not get closure on a lot of my questions, which were answered more in a political vein, than a guy who is control of the future of our company.
The crux of the questions at stages were simply not answered.
But as some have already stated on the forum, his tenure as CEO is questionable.
And I know it's supposed to be an interim role, but I did not walk away believing it.
The statement was made- I will remain CEO as long as the board requires ...meaning as long as Buckler needs me here...which is forever, or as long as Buckler is there.
Brown admits to the difficulties in juggling both jobs, but will continue in these roles into the foreseeable future. He also stated via Lucas, it was already at great detriment to his personal life.....an untenable situation.
I honestly don't believe our CEO should have dual roles, plus the associated roles he will have at Troilus, CML and Greenwing resources. Many forget that as the CEO of Sayona, he has defalted into the Troilus and CML NED roles.
There is simply not enough time in the day to carry out all the functions of a CEO for Morella and Sayona....and all the other NED roles.
How can you have the time to do all this?
Our company will suffer, so too will Morella.
This is not in our best interest, and as switched on as Brown is in mining and operations, he has yet to prove his ability in negotiating offtakes for Sayona, and all we have had is lip service.
Sayona requires a sharp focus and singular vision.
In my eyes its an all consuming role and In Brown's own words, has been challenging to the detriment of his personal life.
Untenable and unsustainable...but states he will fill this role as long as the board (Buckler) requires...something has to give here.
OFFTAKE- When questioned about why we did not have an offtake, the excuse Brown used was that our product is going out to the market through our trading house, and will take 6 months to qualify.
Now I was not allowed an opportunity to follow up, but this make no sense, and for me was a thinly veiled excuse.
How does Piedmont have 2 offtakes with the same product coming from the same facility, which were signed before qualification??
How is Vulcan sold out years in advance? How do Ioneer, Lake and Liontown have offtakes, who are not even in production?
Easy, you set the parameters and specs for the product you will deliver..and allow for variation.
He then states- its a 6 month process...now I am not saying it has not been 6 months...um, so I guess we should be qualified then?
And being a brownfield, we already knew reasonably accurately what we would be able to produce, as opposed to our greenfield competitors.
Yet they have offtakes...
He then went on to tell us of his experience, connections in China and how many cargoes of spodumene he sold.
But still, with all these connections, previous sales and experience, no offtake? That has always stumped me.
And from what has been said, it sounds like we are now starting from scratch.
Why?
He then stated they are actively looking for a long term partner for 3-5 years for NAL (which coincidently means we may not produce carbonate until 2028/2029), but sold spod into the spot market...because there was no offtake....then tells the room there is no spot sales and the spot market is flat.
So why the hell did you wait until now, at the bottom of the cycle and sell into the spot market which has no sales and is flat? Why was The offtake not sealed 12-18 months ago when the lithium market was buoyant?
And now we are stuck, and HAVE to sell into the spot market.
The strategic vision and forethought...its just not there...its all reactive.
The other fact that was mentioned was the Marlin offtake that was being mentioned around the EGM.
A trading Alliance, was the term Brown used for the deal that was ready to be signed just a few months back.
How that fits in with the rumours of POSCO and GM is uncertain, as are the details of the deal.
Would GM/POSCO and Sayona align, to offtake hydroxide to their JV and trade hydroxide to other buyers? And with this would POSCO fit out and operate Amoss, for the 100,000 tonnes hydroxide they were aiming for, possibly achievable by 2027?
I guess we will never know.
DOWNSTREAM- Well, the only thing I am sure of is at some stage moving downstream. But when?
All the timelines from the previous investor presentations are gone.
2026 is dead...no chance.
Brown said for that to happen from now, every single thing would have to go right, and that never happens in a big project like this.
What feels like a no brainer decision to produce carbonate at NAL and nullify the Piedmont offtake, has become so complicated and tied up in red tape, that I would say 2027-2029 is more likely...which fits with Piedmont's rhetoric and offtakes to both LG and Tesla.
A few of us tried to convey the haste which we should be displaying, in achieving this carbonate goal.
To fulfil our commitment to the Quebec Government and more importantly start generating integrated chemical margins, and nullify Piedmont's off take. Brown just couldn't see it....the speed which we want to transform to downstream just isn't there.
These guys said they believe in lithium's future, and even though we are at a low point in the price cycle, believe it will rebound to more sustainable and consistent levels.
So if that's the case, there should be no let up in the speed of attaining this goal...for so many reasons...
The messaging is mixed...we are going downstream, but no timeline when....could be carbonate, but we are doing hydroxide studies so could include hydroxide, no long lead items have been ordered...but I will still mention 2026, but everything has to go right...which it wont.
And now, for the first time, mentioning the Quebec penalty fine as being soft and not out of the question....which matches what Keith has recently been saying.
I feel like we are being groomed to expect this...and I am as angry and disappointed, as I am disgusted, that our CEO is not seeing carbonate at NAL is the best path forward and should be aggressively pursued.
We have most of the Carbonate plant in place, we have a minimal capex and could achieve it in 18 months, we have a great team in place we have Hatch identify exactly what is needed to produce 23600LC. An engineering company who originally designed the plant and has been involved with NAL for over 10 years.
As have the previous operators, we have conducted studied and Hatch has identified exactly what we will need to refurb and complete the carbonate plant. And now, to be tied up in a carbonate, hydroxide trade off study, because it suits the offtake obligations of Piedmont...OMG, you let the cat out of bag there big Jim!
Is this in the best interest of Sayona and its shareholders?
NO!
The one highlight of the downstream conversation, was the strategy for Moblan to be fully integrated from the outset.
However, the timelines for both projects are gone, getting vaguer and vaguer, and I am unclear to where the goal posts have moved to now.
2029-2030? Probably...
The capex for the Carbonate plant was again mentioned at 555million.
But no mention of the contingency built into this figure of 111M.
No mention of Piedmonts share in this figure.
No mention of the new tax laws in Quebec in 2024, to write off 30% tax credit for any capex in the carbonate plant.
Which could get Sayona's direct cost down to C$233M, if we start at 444 and take out PLL's share and the tax credit into consideration.
Should this not even be discussed, rather than going straight for the worst case, making the figure sound untenable?
Its all a bit odd...and suiting Piedmont's narrative, which I will discuss below.
PIEDMONT- Extremely worrying. FIRST 113,000 from 2024 confirmed for Piedmont, and any left over for us and the JV.
And I don't think I have heard or seen such alignment with them..... ever.
Very interesting that Brown refused to say Piedmont, or PLL.
He only referred to it as the JV or our partner.
The consultants must understand the angst we have toward PLL, and he was advised not to mention them by name.
Red flag #1- Mentioning the soft Quebec penalty for not going downstream by June 2026. This has started coming into the conversation now, where before it was unthinkable. Keith is talking about it and more, and more worrying, so now is the Sayona CEO.
Has this now become a viable option?
Is this in the best interest of Sayona and its shareholders?
Red Flag #2- During discussion of the hydroxide/ carbonate trade off study, Brown stated that part of this study was to align with the strategic obligations of our partners offtakes. WTF?
Since when are Piedmont's downstream aspirations of hydroxide ever aligned with a carbonate plant at NAL?
I think I know what is going on here.
I would not be surprised, with a little persuasion from Keith, if they decide to go to Hydroxide at NAL.
They have elevated the capex for the carbonate plant to 555M, then will come out with a rosy figure in this study to day that a hydroxide plant capex will be in the same ball park.
Then PLL will agree to go downstream, and it will take until 2028/2029 for the refit....
Just my opinion, and it may just be my cynicism toward PLL bubbling to the surface, but the path we are heading down here is very concerning.
The out clause we had built into the offtake is looking like taking a lot longer...and once again to our detriment.
COMMUNICATION- The old argument just goes from strength to strength.
Brown did not answer my question as to why he did not write a letter to Sayona shareholders, reassuring the faithful, the week he took over...as he did for the Morella shareholders. i was trying to understand te logic and mindset for this, but he did not answer and moved on...
He did not state why Tabba Tabba was a price sensitive announcement for Morella, but not for Sayona.
He took no accountability for missed timelines...
He says he is approachable and accessible, yet Split and I have not been able to meaningfully engage with him.
My comments about not having his email or number were not a demand and yes, of course I do not need to have them...fully agree. But we have tried to open a dialogue to point out these issues, both directly and via the office and get no traction. So I disputed the fact he was telling the room.
He then accussed me of thinking I was an IR officer which is a ridiculous statement to make, and he has completely missed the point of my communications with him.
I am an avid supporter of the company, and want them to succeed at every step. And that's it...
He does not have a communication officer and has Dougal running this role, while fulfilling his finance manager duties.
Which is another compliance issue, according to their own governance statement.
Then when pushed on these issues, he takes no accountability and states I was a Non Executive director, I was not involved.
It seemed to be the go to defence when things were not going his way, I was just a NED, lets move on.
And now moving forward, it seems from what we heard. comms will slow down.
Brown, a self confessed man who does not seek the limelight,in itself, is not a bad thing.
At one stage, he said he doesn't have an email?
Bizarre, but he was being hammered by me at this stage and I think he meant he didn't have an email available to the shareholders.
At odds with social media, he also stated you wont know what I am doing.
He said that he has had meetings, visited trade shows and met with institutions which we wont know about.
Brown made this sound very grand, but there is a few issues here.
Time....he make it sound like he has dropped Morella like a hot potato and is doing the rounds for Sayona.
This balancing act is untenable, and will be with us for at least another year...
And the balancing act will now extend to the comms.
In a modern world, no social media? No Twitter? Minimal emails...I think we are headed back to the dark ages.
It almost felt like a let me get on with it and don't question what I am doing....
No worries, by all means get on with it...please...but investors and the market want transparency, and to be kept abreast pf what if happening.
We have seen what periods of zero comms can do.
They lead to ambiguity and the market questions the plan and strategy.
The market views inaction in comms, as inaction by the company....even when things are happening in the background.
And with a CEO who now admittedly wants to go dark, no socials and has not committed to a IR comms officer, expect things to get much worse and the market to further punish the SP.
GOVERNANCE- A litany of Non compliance through their governance statement.
The only clause, he spoke of fixing was the majority independance of the board, and the chair position, hopefully by March 2024.
Conflict of interest and conflict of duty will not be addressed and only disclosed at board level, they have not been disclosed to the shareholders.
The JV negotiations between Morella and Sayona were not addressed and brushed aside.
The board renewal process has been promised from October 2022, so I am not holding my breath.
Lucas has been the only new director appointed, which was made in haste, due to the removal of Lynch.
This was not part of the original board renewal process.
There was no reason given why we have switched from Korn Ferry to Brunswick for our executive search.
The independance still worries me.
Lucas is clearly aligned with Brown and Buckler, and no legitimate reason was given to prove his impartiality.
And I suspect the chair process will be the same.
They will appoint a chair aligned with them, who will then help appoint a CEO, who is aligned with them...and it goes on and on...
And Jim will be CEO as long as is required by the board...probably forever.
The VR clause again raised its ugly head.
Paul was under the impression there was nothing wrong with it and just couldn't see it.
But with a little persistence, and the help of their own legal council, they agreed to reword it.
FIRST NATIONS- Not sure how our relationship here has soured, but it seems we are now at odds with both the Abitibiwinni and the Cree.
The Cree have somehow blocked the Route Du Nord, and seems to be aimed at Sayona and Troilus. This may be a Troilus issue, which we have now inherited with our involvement in them.
The Abitibiwinee are massive shareholders and sit just outside the top 20. The Chief addressed the AGM, and in very stern words warned the board that shutting them out is not an option, which will force them to dig their heels in.
Nobody wants that...
Jim did mention some comms with them, but nothing concrete.
We need this sorted asap, and by the sounds of it he will be heading to Quebec soon to pen a deal.
His trip to Quebec can't come soon enough, and this will be a big test for him.
FIRST STRIKE-The Corporations Amendment (Improving Accountability on Director and Executive Remuneration) Act 2011 amended to Corporations Act to strengthen the accountability and transparency of Australia’s executive remuneration framework and give shareholders more power over the pay of company directors and executives by establishing the ‘two strikes’ rule. The rule means that boards face being spilled if they suffer shareholder votes of more than 25 per cent against their executive pay proposals at two consecutive company annual general meetings.
They very nearly had a first strike in 2022, and just managed to get it over the line, via proxy votes.
2023 could have been strike 2, and they ALL go up for re-election.
This is a BIG vote of no confidence in the board, and if things don't change, they will be gone late 2024, as was mentioned late in the AGM.
This first strike, is a win for us.
It puts the board on notice, and pushes them to improve and get the company headed in the right direction.
They are on notice now.
However, as they are in charge of their own remuneration, I think they will put up their hands again next year for a decent increase.
In addition, they have set the bar very low for NAL's output next year.
This soft figure will be reflected as a target for their equity based bonus, and grab for more shares.
In other words, they are angling for a bonus, even if they don't make nameplate.
But that's OK, because if they run with that and the performance at NAL has not improved significantly, it will infuriate the investor base, particularly if they push the STI/performance bonuses in the rem report again.
And by the way, when I question an increase in Director fee as per Resolution 4, on top of the pool increase, Brown stated they did not have an increase since 2021.
I challenged him on this and thought it was $30K, but will double check.
We were BOTH wrong....it has increased by 53K, or 74%, as outlined in the 2023 Annual, rem report, item 6 Non ED remuneration.
as well as in the resolution 4 explanation-
Accordingly, the current fee for Non-Executive Directors of $125,000 is expected to increase to $130,000 in FY24.
.
So increases over 2022-2023 of 74% and 2023-2024 of of a further 4%, with a nett of 78%
And another little bombshell for you-
SYA_AR2023_Front End.cdr6. Non-Executive Director Remuneration (annual report 2023, page 58)
The maximum aggregate fee pool for Non-Executive Directors is US$500,000 which was approved by shareholders at the Annual General Meetingon 28 January 2022.
I didn't think much of this until now....but don't trust anything they say anymore.
More BS...not is all that it seems with Mr nice guy big Jim Brown here.
For those of you that thought he presented well...he did, I agree and he 100% carried the rest of the BOD.
Not hard when you have a bumbling geriatric on one end, a half dead corpse on the other, and the new guy with limited exposure in the middle...
Maybe a little harsh...but that's how it seemed, when presented with these guys during this meeting.
And many of the comments, and the substance of what he was stating was wrong, inaccurate or not addressed.
For the average punter, it all sounded reasonably positive.
But for many of us in the room, could see through the rhetoric, inconsistencies and inaccuracies presented.
And there were just too many red flags
Offtake- Qualification??? How is PLL qualified?
Compliance- No plan
Constitition- Screwed it up again and will revisit the VR clause
Comms- No plan, No IR officer, Dougal to continue and Brown stated he will reduce disclosure
Board Independance- Not confirmed and in question, with Korn Ferry being dumped
Alignment with Piedmont- Strongest I have ever seen, now using Piedmont rhetoric, first 113k to them, even if we produce as low as 130K-nett 17k and studying hydroxide to align with the offtake obligations of Piedmont.
Lack of timelines- Gone...unable to be benchmarked, both in production and with board renewal for CEO
Soft STI's or performance targets- Lowered output for NAL to ensure STI target is met
Governance- No plan to address deficiencies
Poor track record - remained unaddressed
Divided time and focus with Morella- Untenable, with no change in the foreseeable future
First Nations- Degraded relations
Quebec government- Who bloody knows???Particularly if the fine us in 2026...
Conflict of duty- Unaddressed
Conflict of interest-Lucas said it was disclosed AT BOARD LEVEL ONLY
Accountability- Very thin, if any, continually falling back on the NED excuse
Transparency- None...
Trust- Gone.
We pushed them where we could and tried to get concise answers to these very important questions.
Yet there is mostly no plan, and a wavering strategy.
There is a stark contrast when I left the AGM in 2022.
BL's positivity and vision seemed to be seizing the moment and the first mover advantage we worked so hard to achieve.
I left full of optimism for what 2023 would hold, and could not wait to tell you guys what had transpired in that meeting.
This year was completely different.
There seems to be a dilution of everything...a shift in strategy, with a bunch of new red flags thrown in.
It has been difficult to write about because that optimism I once felt, has been steam rolled with doubt, uncertainty and trepidation.
I have made many friends along this journey, and even some enemies who have physically threatened me.
But it has been worth it.
There is a lot of us hurting here, but still believing in the narrative.
What we currently have, and what we could become still keeps me here.
The bones are there and most fundamentals are still in place.
We still have the potential to become a behemoth in North America, but as any business, will need a great team to lead us there.
A modern team with vigour, strategy, diversity, independance and the skillset to take all challenges in their stride and propel this company forward, against all opposition...
And after what I say on Thursday, this team sadly isn't it....
Good luck everyone
(20min delay)
