Ann: Important Voting Reminder, page-40

@You3OAte ...

So you're prepared to support those incumbents, that either lied to shareholders, or didn't know about the blowout of costs that they should have known about (as in directors responsibility to keep on top of things), then tried to raise capital that would have more than halved the value of the LLL holding to existing shareholders, employed a MD that wasn't needed, paid him out big, write off to zero over $250M in spending at Morila, yet you have more faith in them than the unknown...

With experience like that, why would you even want them to continue to manage what's left of your money, while earning a large fee for themselves, over some untried shareholders that are going out of their way to represent shareholders?? I don't understand the logic. How could the proposed new directors do worse??

IMHO it's not a choice of 2 appalling options. The incumbents are the appalling option, the new comers are unknown. We know what the incumbents are capable of, which is not much. So why not give someone else a go?? The learning curve for new directors is going to be steep, but at least the new are passionate about the task.


Give me someone passionate about a task every day of the week over those that are trying to protect their income without a shred of thought about shareholder funds.
But each to their own I suppose...