So YOU are saying there ARE negatives in this AGM notice?I don't...

So YOU are saying there ARE negatives in this AGM notice?

I don't know what makes you think my post suggests anything negative? But it seems underneath your guise, you admit there are negatives!

Res 3, I'm just suggesting that for SH to vote on increasing the Director's fee pool, we should be given more info such as who SPA intend to fill in the director roles that they have indicated per the annual report. As a SH, I like to make informed decisions, I think that's fair.

The second resolution I mentioned (Res 5), Again, I like to make informed decisions. I believe SPA management can use their 15% Annual share allocation at their own discretion (we have no say over that anyway), beyond that 15%, SH approval should be sought, here management are asking SH to give them control over another 10%.... any engaged SH would (should) want to have a say on the creation and allocation of new shares (so they are not just given away for free or for bad deals). Nothing negative about that.

Res 7, the Conditional Spill Resolution, I just find it interesting that it's included in this AGM notice, I haven't seen that before in other AGMs. The fact that it is included suggests that management are preparing that Res1 (Remunition report) may get voted down. I didn't say that including this Res 7 was Negative, I was just joining the dots, but now that you bring it up, thanks for pointing out the inferred Negatives you see in this AGM notice.