clive palmer and ctp

I am very curious as to why people would be so willing to support a board who's record only demonstrates degradation of shareholder value. Flipping through the annual reports, it is clear that 100,000 shares bought in 2007 is worth less than half now.

There must be enough people on this vast register in some measure of profit I presume, or else it'd be downright anarchy, however I do also suppose that there'd be plenty of losses floating around the traps.

Perhaps in plenty of former holders.

In any case, the board must be held responsible, for it is true of any ASX listed company that board meetings are held to discuss and democratically agree on major decisions prior to acting. So I am very interested to see so much hatred towards the former MD, who in all likelihood merely acted by direction of his board. Is he accountable? Yes, to a degree, however as a founding director, and the man solely responsible for the company's existence, I can't help but feel he is still relevant. Perhaps not as an MD, but somewhere surely.

Also, let's not forget here, for all of those who feel John Heugh somehow managed to be all-powerful enough through the years and ultimately ran the company as though it were a play-thing supposedly against the wishes of the board, how on earth did he suddenly (with the same board) get "voted off the island"? I mean, there are 3 of them, and one of him.

The numbers stack against him - historically. I feel people have forgiven the board all too easily in the face of a slide of hand in Clive Palmer.

Even if you do NOT agree with that, and I can see the argument against, I would still venture to say that bringing on Clive Palmer as a strategic investor, at prices that every investor worth his salt can see are ridiculously cheap, is merely a basic strategy.

Clive himself has many successes under belt, and for this I respect him, however I think we're doing HIM a favour as much as he is doing US a favour.

Honestly, if we wanted takeover protection, why didn't we at least let the price run further before offering a bargain to an already-billionaire? As it turns out, all of this talk of Hess buying supposedly through Petroleum Nominees was rubbish, and there WAS no takeover threat - it was Clive all along.

I am very concerned by those thinking this "white knight" is a saviour, when in reality he's quite possibly been planning this for a while.

There will be those who point to an appreciated share price as support for the Clive Palmer revelation.

To them I say, look at the historical average of Central, and you'll find it's close to double the current share price.

We've wiped out about 25% of the overall loss on Central, but with so far left to run, I do not see the benefit of Clive over a second well at Surprise.

Truth be told, if Clive was so interested in Central, he'd have continued to buy on market, and we'd already be at $0.15. So why have they done it now?

There is a threat from a group of shareholders, clearly sick of this mismanagement.

Is it a coincidence that this was announced after the company was served with a letter warning them of an impending call to EGM? Of course it is not. Let us not be naive. This was not for takeover protection. It was BOARD PROTECTION.

That is appalling !!

The company mantra was always "commercialisation of a liquid program", yet suddenly we're hell bent on Seismic and takeover protection.

We were at our MOST VULNERABLE after the success at Surprise when we were still unsure of what the company would do with the money from the yet to be completed SPP.

So why didn't they think of it THEN? It would have been at lower prices, but logic states we'd act when we're most vulnerable and already in the process.

Clearly it wasn't as important. The only difference now? A threat to management.

Self preservation is not a trait I want in my board. Doing the right thing for the company is, even if that is to step down and hand over the reins.