The bit that gets me about the board argument is saying that the Browns should not get preferential treatment. I totally agree with that, but I think they completely missed the point. We ALL wanted better communication. I doubt the Brows were saying "Tell us this but don't tell anyone else". The Browns wanted more clarity as we all did. I could be wrong, but this seems like a cheap shot from the board to try and turn us against the Browns by saying they were trying to get information above what was available to us.
Agreed with
@cokelator the job of a busy person is to delegate tasks. Understood he's got a lot on right now, but how is he going to cope when we get to the next stage? It's all pretty simple - release one good, informative announcement and all the calls to the office stop. It reminds me of an old friend that used to run a backpackers hostel. I was annoyed she would never answer the phone during the day. One day I was over there and the phone was ringing non-stop and she wasn't answering. After a while she got exasperated and said: "I DON'T KNOW WHY PEOPLE KEEP CALLING ME!!! The office is closed from 12-3pm. Why do people keep calling?!?"
As it turned out, the only person that knew it was closed from 12-3pm was her. Nothing on the answering machine, nothing on the website, no sign on the front door. All she had to do was say that on the answering machine and people would have stopped calling.
This is something so simple and basic and isn't even acceptable for something as basic as a backpackers hostel. "Provide the information, and people will stop bugging you".
We shouldn't be dealing with the same situation in a company with $4.7b NPV.
Something definately needs to change, though I'm not sure The Browns convinced me that the solution was to remove Rex. Rather than remove Rex, why did they not request that independant chairman must be appointed within 180 days or something?
The letter from the Browns seems more directed at the whole board than specifically Rex, so I wonder why they didn't just leave it till AGM and go through that process? Rexy does have a point that he is a significant shareholder and also would want the shares to perform well. What will happen to his shares if he is removed?
Not yet sure which way I'll vote.
