agm - loan notes & voting, page-5

Yref,

I have refrained from answering your post until now, to allow others the opportunity to comment instead or vote accordingly, to show support for your view.

There doesn't seem much support going by the lack of thumbs up and no-one else has commented on it.

Personally, I wish they were all up for election, so they could hopefully all be voted off, but they aren't. So by the way it works one director happens to be up for re-election.

I ask myself this, does an oil & gas company need to have its former secretary on the board of directors? what will they bring to the table regarding discussions on oil & gas deals etc ?

Do Antares really need to pay someone $225,000+ to run an office and do accounts, when they have no staff of there own & only 6 directors to worry about?

Money only comes from one source etc and will not go out to many sources

If you read the new company secretary's CV, they have worked for much large company's in the past and have accounting and legal qualifications as well.

Quite frankly, the whole board are over paid for what they achieve.

However in the case in question, I'm sure they could easily find someone capable of doing the job required, for under $100,000 without them being on the board, so that proper oil & gas people can be put on the board.

This company simply doesn't understand giving shareholders value for money.

That's why shareholders should vote NO.

Now lets hear your case for why shareholders should vote YES in this instance?

LOTM