SP3At no point was my comment directed at the ability or ethics...

SP3

At no point was my comment directed at the ability or ethics of the Directors.The current directors have a high level of skills and ethics.

My comment was based on an allignment of interest, if a company has a major shareholder who has put in his own hard earned cash then they have a interest in promoting the 'company'.

Being a Director holding shares should not affect your skills or ethics

A classic case is Gerry Harvey, others include Kerry Stokes,Ken Talbot and the list goes on

One wonders if say Ken Talbot had a 20% shareholding in the company, if the company would still be hiding under a tree.

Directors are appointed by shareholders to look after there interest, can you tell me a better way for the interest of the shareholders to be alligned with those of Directors than the Directors having spent some there own hard earned cash

I am not in favour of granting options to Directors except
in the circumstance of them foregoing a portion of the salary to BUY options that have exercise dates spread over a 1 to a 4 or 5 year vesting period. That way you get a better balance between short term performance and long term performance.

If you want to have a look at a company that does not give a rats bum about its shareholders have a look at MHL,the directors have been spending shareholders funds for no benefit to the shareholders. Another co where there is no allignment of interest is ZYL, and I am sure there are 100s more

What we as shareholder hope to achieve is a growth in the sp, and ultimately dividends, both are a factor of time and effort of the Directors.

ESI is not BHP or anyone of the other majors, what we need is some exposure to the investment community at large, ie promote the 'company'