Its a fact Management have missed many deadlines over the past 8...

Its a fact Management have missed many deadlines over the past 8 - 10 years
Its a fact the culmulative effect of these misses has bought shareholders to the 203D. Its not anyone else's fault but the Board and Management.
Its obvious TNG are moving into a different phase that requires an uplift of skills and accountability to ensure financing, construction, commissioning and production happen on time. Current Board are "demonstrating in real time" their inability to meet deadlines is a major risk to the project!
In my mind, the NTEPA decision stood out as the the last straw confirming the arrogance and incompetence. There is no way WHATSOEVER Paul could have been blindsided unless he had no oversight at all. Its just impossible to be working with a government agency on a project like one arm point and not have a hint of what the NTEPA issues might be! its BS to suggest otherwise!
In my mind (and to my memory), we saw a similar flurry of good news from the TNG Board the last time there was a hint of a shareholder revolt at the AGM 3 or 4 years ago so I am very cynical and somewhat annoyed at the timing of the announcements. We should ask at what point was the company in receipt of the 203D notice and the finance commitments? Is it the case this has been handled in a manner to make the 203D applicants case look weak or obstructive???

PLEASE REMEMBER EVERYONE, the issues that led to the 203D have been going on for years. The two announcements within a week "coincidently" just before TNG have to announce the 203D does not alter a demonstrated history of underachievement, underperformance leading to undervaluation.

In my mind,
John should resign immediately given he is ultimately responsible as Chair for letting shareholders get to this point of being so aggrieved. He should do so off his own bat.
Paul could stay IF a skilled, and high powered board is inserted that can show more respect and transparency to shareholders and hold management responsible, accountable and on task. This may lead to Paul's resignation or termination in any case if the new Board is doing its job. If Paul is adverse to a new and competent Board, he should tender his resignation as well and save himself and the new board the stress and wasted time.
Simon's position should be reviewed assessing what he can contribute to the board moving forward.
The Exec line needs a tidy up with a review of JD's and set KPI's with timeframes for staff to meet and have their performance objectively assessed against. Looking at the titles on the webpage, there appears to be significant crossover and a top heavy structure.
Time for Paula to go to I think...??