I'm sorry Locksmith, your post offers very little that balances an argument. If you disagree with my criticism which seems reasonably factual to me, then step up provide some critical thinking on the matter. Simply stating that the project is massive and will go ahead is what is unbalanced. I don't take words from a group of blokes as gospel.
Just for the record I have given Paul (sorry, he's not my school teacher, he's a director of a company we all part own) reasonable praise for progressing the project. Great DFS on the back of TIVAN and some binding offtakes.
For absolute clarity, my criticism is on how the company is being run, measurable by share price. There is no character assassination or down ramping, I actually think he's a reasonable bloke and like all shareholders, I would like to see further returns on my investment. I write regarding
company performance.
It doesn't matter if a shareholder has $500 or $5m invested, is young, old, educated or not, one that likes a free RSS lunch or one that doesn't, all should be asking questions of the board, particularly in a company that is underperforming the way TNG has in the last 6 months.
Just a couple of points for consideration on the Chairman and attracting talent vs shareholder actions on remuneration you mention.
I would suggest any Chairman worth his weight in gold would be sticking clear of TNG not because he would not be granted options, but because of a little word called risk that is associated with taking that position and the company failing to get the project away.
1. Most Chairman's are career board types so being part of a company that fails to get a project away doesn't look good on a CV. That's risk.
2. Most Chairman's like a smooth sailing ship, not something they have to turn around. Clearly there are issues with investor relations given the former Chinese director and the AGM debacle which needs to be turned around.
3. You've got potential repercussions from ASIC with regard to disclosure and director judiciary duties if the company fails. That's risk.
4. You've got potential repercussions from shareholders similar to (3) in a class action if such an action is warranted. That's risk.
I'd also make the point that if the company is serious about good corporate governance (as a billion dollar company should), we'd be remunerating an independent chairman and non-executive independent directors in line with the ASX governance principles. P33 s8.2
http://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf
Some might read this compliance document and start to put a few dots together, if they don't fall asleep reading it.
Food for thought.
(20min delay)