Cashman
How many times do I have to explain that JH is an adviser to Ferghana Partners on SCIENCE? He's not a deal maker for them. PLUS he's not responsible for the precarious situation ADO was in. He was not running the ship when it was foundering. Read my recent posts on this in response including to
@ds please!
You have decided to attack JH whereas from what I can work out, he basically cleaned up the ship, and righted it along with AS.
GC and RM presided over what was indisputably a fiasco but you can't see it. They're the good guys here?!
It seems like few want to recognise
how little we really understand about the whole murky business.
More dangerously, instead of showing healthy scepticism for both sides, it's all directed at one side.
Have you even spoken with JH? I seriously doubt it.
As for the shares. Symbolism. JH has got a lot of professional interests other than ADO and if he didn't have shares long before last AGM it doesn't bother me. As a Director with a limited role, he was catapulted into the role of Chairman, after MB exited unexpectedly. Is it just possible that he didn't want to take on the role of Chairman, and did it out of service? He's no slouch internationally but in HC chat he's been made out to be some kind of pariah.
RM has a LOT of ADO shares and it doesn't convince me
he has acted more in shareholder's interests than JH.
The conflict of interest issues involving FC and ADO are murky to say the least. The continual issuing of shares? Murky. Have you even looked at how ADO has had several incarnations before this?
I'm wanting accountability and fairness as far as possible. Very few of you will engage on the most serious issues I raise.
At times, as you have just done, a few issues with symbolic meaning are chosen but always delivered with a sledge. (
I could go on? Well why don't you? It's bit of a sledge at my volume. But think about it. I'm performing a function that nobody else, it seems will take on. It needs to be said so you others can at least attempt to think about it. Or, in the fullness of time, think it over later).
Surely, surely in a discussion room, there must be an alternative view to the prevailing one?
Why are people so keen to shut me down?
Surely you can see this is unreasonable and unfair?
Is it possible that you won't engage on the issues because you want to believe in a much simpler solution than exists? Sorry but your argument of guilt by association re Ferghana Partners, and the shares thing doesn't survive closer scrutiny. (Read back where I've explained this more thoroughly. But will you?)
How about this for the other side of your symbolism:
I was listening very closely indeed to Joe Maeji's response at the AGM and he was far from impressed. This was my biggest signal. Apart from the RM dealings.
Surely for any fairminded person, it would be one of theirs?
It's a deep signal from the murky pond that something is wrong with these destabilising moves.
EGMs and minority shareholder protections? It's not as straightforward as all that.
We don't know what is going on in the Board room and has gone on, but further and better particulars are needed. Not just force of numbers.
IMO.
(20min delay)