Ann: Resignation of non-executive director, page-44

....well sure (because that's obvious as it wasn't actually 100% clarified).

The CEO has talked in platitudes and with management speak like this IMO for years, so surely if there was any doubt someone asked at the AGM for that to be specified ?

Surely...

So what is the answer?

I mean here we have at this crucial time in the organising of funding of this business - one of these "folks?" (that is only a postulate ; not 100% confirmed...that is why I asked the above question) now resigning from the BOD and we are expected to believe the CEO thought only a week or so before that they were "in it for the long haul"? and "when we would need capital these are the folks who would give it to us"?

I mean haven't they all sat on the same board for months having meetings together? What have they actually been doing the last month during the suspension? Shareholders are led to believe the BOD now believes RI are no longer a stable source of funding, and then the inference at the AGM is "well that's OK" (because these two other key new shareholders will be the source of future capital) and only a week later ?one of these has resigned from the BOD?

Surely all those sitting at that AGM assumed he was referring to either/or both the two new large shareholder groups when he made that statement?

If they weren't 100% sure (and it was left ambiguous in shareholders minds by the CEO), why didn't someone at the AGM ask him to specify precisely who that he was referring to as the future source of that capital ?

Would it not be safe to assume that if they didn't ask him to clarify, everyone was left in no doubt who he actually meant when referring to "the folks out of Hong Kong" and that they were left in no doubt they would also be contributing to funding?