I laugh when they have a go at the 249d requisitioner.An equal...

I laugh when they have a go at the 249d requisitioner.

An equal return of capital was able to be done ages back , without the ATO excuse. I suggest they came to this conclusion only as a result of the 249d and not under their own steam.

TH supports the capital return, as stated. So funds are as certain to be returned as they are now.

I was a shareholder long before Digby and Lai. I don't see how they can claim any high ground on representing ordinary shareholders interest. I actually see them as more a risk than a new board.

Over the years how many shares have the current board accumulated. I reckon you can gauge their passion for growing a business, to just collecting a wage on that factor alone.

I am sick of their identifying, incomplete proposals.etc. That is just code for doing nothing but collecting a directors fee IMO. History shows that to be anyway.

cheers