A lot of thought has gone into your comments, Pep. I lack the...

A lot of thought has gone into your comments, Pep. I lack the mining knowledge to offer any sensible comment as to the merits of what you say. What I can say is that you have taken a refreshing look at Gunson and Coburn in particular. You have thought outside the square, and come up with something from left field. This is great to see!! And this is what we need to see and hear from Gunson leadership – some innovative ideas, think outside the square, bold moves that will begin to get the company out of its current mire. Hey, Gunson has value, and it doesn’t deserve to be in the bad place in which it currently finds itself.
Leadership is what we need. As I see it, there are two leadership contenders – Mr. Harley and Mr. Tilbrook. (Well, probably not Mr. Tilbrook himself, but him through the new MD if the meeting later this month votes to remove Mr. Harley.) So, these two leadership contenders need to step up to the plate in this critical period for Gunson. They are both courting our votes.

I say to both of them: “Before the meeting later this month, show us why we should vote for you. Convince us, with some strategic vision and bold moves for a desperate situation. Dazzle us with come strong arguments and some specific plans. Get hold of the consultant’s strategic review and put your own imprimatur on it. Please don’t just top and tail the consultant’s review – inject your own thinking and vision and determination, such that we don’t just read some nice words and fancy graphs and pipe dreams, but some detailed plans, timelines, goals, etc. Mail this out to us so we can read it before the meeting."

What you have done, Pep, is grab the bull by the horns and you have come up with some ideas out of left field. Well done! They may be brilliant ideas, or on the other hand, they may not be viable. I don’t know. Regardless of the specifics of your argument, what you have done is shown some great thinking, and you have come up with an innovative approach. So, can you relay your thoughts directly to the two leadership contenders? They are both contactable. By showing them what you have come up with, maybe it will help them see what solutions may be found by thinking laterally. By thinking outside the box, maybe there is some great and new way forward. They should either refute or support what you have said, with some logical argument. Then, if they refute it, they should come up with something better. If they support it, then put some meat on the bones (a broad action plan and dates) and have that information out to us before we are asked to vote on who the next MD. If one of the two candidates is to get our vote, he should either support your view, or come up with something better, which is properly argued and has some kind of action plan attached to it. If not, we may as well vote for you for MD.

Mr. Tilbrook has put a case forward for removal of Mr. Harley. Most of his views were, however, criticism. Nothing wrong with that, but he now needs to move beyond criticism, to say specifically how he intends to drive the future agenda for Gunson via some new MD.

So, Pep, I encourage you to get your views as expressed in your recent post to the two leadership contenders and ask them to include comment on your ideas when they hopefully put their views to us prior to the meeting.
And let us all view critically how the strategic review is dealt with via comments from both contenders. In my view, they need to either agree or disagree with the various recommendations of the strategic review, then produce a blueprint of how they view us going forward. When I see these comments from them, I will then be able to make an informed decision as to who earns my vote at the meeting in May.