I always look forward to your input since you appear to be privy...

I always look forward to your input since you appear to be privy to more history than most of us. I won't bite at the curt response but I will address the points you've raised through the eyes of "joe public" and continue to explain why I see it the way I (and potentially others) do.

Look here ... I know both Mark and Mike personally ... who's money kept the lights on between 2005 and 2015?
Not sure I can see the point you're trying to make here, but one could say this period was "pre-success / pre-product" and so it was essentially "pre value". Angel investors and to whatever extent Mark kept the lights on. More on why thats kind of not relevent today in a moment...

Who paid for the patents? The initial milestone A, B and C shares were part of the prospectus for the reverse listing and were given to all original angel investors like me ... in exchange for our shares in Goldwing.
I would have preferred a larger amount up front ... rather than incentives which I had no control over.... and missed out on millions of shares by not achieving C.
You took an early risk, that's not what is up for debate. At the very crux I feel this is a public company without a public company mentality.


Mark in particular is not after the salary .... like Nicola Tesla he is an inventor and has the same desire as every inventor... To leave a legacy and be remembered.
I want to reiterate I've got the utmost respect for Mark, his vision and for delivering on that vision. He deserves everything coming to him.
I do however find myself questioning the morality of staff layoffs while continuing the high board salaries, for a company which is essentially being kept afloat by rebates & CRs. Many companies - private and public, had voluntary pay reductions by senior board members as it was in the best interest of the company. And these were companies who were cashflow positive.

if retail shareholders align with his vision then good luck to us ... it's called a win / win
Personally I'd have preferred we never listed and Goldwing Nominees just raised $20 million
Now this is where things get mighty murky for me. On the surface we have a culture of "us and them" - us being the angels/institutions and them being the retail investors. My rudimentary understanding of the responsibilities for the board of an ASX listed company is that which is to primarily act in the best interests of the shareholders. All of them.

Since you know Mike personally this is an incredible opportunity for me to be educated and (I genuinely hope) have my personal opinions, which I have formed solely myself based on my own (potentially flawed) observations, corrected.
I find myself questioning Mike's ability / competency in the role of a CEO for an ASX listed company. Why? Because I know nothing of his experience in similar roles. The limited information I can find was some involvement in a technical role in the aviation industry?

Is he kicking goals as fast as what a tried-and-tested-battle-hardened CEO could be kicking? None of us know that for sure, we don't know what is said in meetings behind closed doors. We also don't understand why Wienerberger publically stated that FBR don't understand them/their requirements (or something to that effect).

Are the decisions being made genuinely in the interest of all shareholders impartially, rather than the very human emotional potential of those decisions being influenced by the "family connection" - or the perceived us & them mentality?

When I met Mike at the roadshow I found myself liking him as a person, I believed his passion, hell I even went out of my way to shake his hand.
None of that detracts from me questioning whether his is the right bum in the chair for the interest of all holders, and not just the angels.