Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting 2012 , page-25

"Resolution 3 seeks shareholder approval ... for the Company to be authorised to increase the aggregate amount of fees paid to Directors by $250,000 from $500,000 per annum to an aggregate amount of $750,000 per annum."

In other words, they want to increase the directors' TOTAL remuneration from $500k to $750k.

Not each individual director. There are currently five directors, meaning each can only be paid an average of $100k each.

If they want to put on, say, two additional directors, they obviously need to increase the remuneration pool.

It's really no big deal from what I can see. They also specifically state there are no immediate plans to use this increase.

As for AC's performance rights, to get 100% of his Tranche A rights he needs to grow the SP by 20% pa for 3 years, which is in excess of a 70% increase, or a SP of 46.5c from 27c.

Does anybody seriously think a 70% ROI in 3 years is a bad rate of return? I don't. Especially when looking at the chart of the last 3 years.

If AC can get that 70% ROI for me I won't begrudge him his share rights.

Likewise Tranche B. 150% of reserves is another 4-5 years of mine life in a project that's already extremely robust. Yes, it's potentially fairly easily achievable given we know the grade increases with depth and that there is already 200% of current reserves as JORC resources, but again, if it is achieved, who cares if AC gets another 400k shares? Not me.

Tranche C is a bit trickier because it's kind of vague. What exactly is 'value realisation'? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean selling Roseby for $150M, but I'm not entirely sure what it DOES mean. Something to ask the company.