Share
3,251 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 118
clock Created with Sketch. 29/04/25
17:20
Share
Originally posted by BillieDobe:
↑
If you really think the payout for Datt (who owns 12% of the company) is clipping the ticket on directors fees is a serious proposition I would think again. The company is owned by the shareholders, not the board, not management. The shareholders elect the board and management to run the shareholders company. If the board member in question don't like the resolutions, they can vote their shares against it. If Datt thinks there are better people and the board is not giving his thoughts due consideration, he is entitled to take the action he has. The shareholders will vote and have their say. If you think the minor share weakness (which may or may not be attribuable to this) is any big deal, imagine if Datt exited his 12% position, and the impact that would have on price. He wants the company to succeed. He thinks there are better people available that 2 of the ones there. He's not trying to roll the whole board, or to change management. People should try to keep an open mind, but so open their brains fall out.
Expand
and regardless what it is investors don't like instability and unknown. people will take profits until things settle
(20min delay)