GS
those are my points why they deserve to go:
Of course some is opinion but that is a market - If I dont think it was worth more I wouldnt buy it.
I also dont have to sell just because I dont agree - I can actually vote and I can seek to influence others to vote with me.
I am not concerned about the share price having gone done - you seem to scan rather than read - I have stated I sold for a very small loss and then purchased a lot more - My average cost including previous losses on 7 million shares is around 6.2cents.
I am voting against the consolidation in support of the fact that i believe now is not the right time.
Where did I say the directors fees are unreasonable - I said that they dont deserve an extra free $25K of shares after having got over 100% increase. They are not entitled to these extra shares unless the majority vote in favour.
If EGO is an explorer it hasnt drilled one hole in over 3 years as I recall.
If item 7 makes no sense then there is no hope in debating anything with you: Lets try it in simple terms - If oil is $100 barrel then exploring has a value up to and including a total all in cost of say $99 per barrel. But you farmin investor would want a return on their money so they would calculate the chances for success and the theoretical all in cost. Obviously your farmin price that you can command is how much money they will pay for a seat at the table and that is based upon selling price less estimated all in cost versus costs they have to put in ...
Essentially if Oil is $50 a barrel the opportunity you are trying to sell has a much lower value and the project will have a much lower NPV. Thus to get a farmin today versus when oil was $100 means you will get substantially less or even nothing. It would be far better to probably get debt financing or to go it alone as the prospective farmin partner knows we are weak but we have positive cash flow that should fund debt or make case to get shareholders to back a CR.
Hopefully that explains it.
I am not being dishonest in regard to disclosure - There is nothing in my facts that is incorrect you stated it was meaningful - I then showed you the list of why I dont rate their performance.
As to item 11 - I have not had any hardship if you took the trouble maybe you would look at the previous posts in which I have stated that I have not had the hardship that many have had here or look at the other companies I post on many are doing well - (ERM excluded - this week was bad) - I do however believe that ERM who in effect control this company asked for shareholders help and made promises and thus the process is not the same as other shares.
As regards opinion - its your opinion that I dont understand the business , I dont understand what the directors are trying to achieve, and I dont understand what the directors mandate is - instead of me being allowed my opinion you actually have the audacity to make judgments about me without any evidence. To date I have not judged you - I have not sought to make this personal nor have I told you what you do or dont understand - I have merely stated my views which is what a forum is about.
Really I have said enough I am having a break from EGO I unfortunately only ever come here because I think its an important debate. However really - this is less than 0.2% of my focus yet is occupying more than 20%.
Shareholder activism is in fact how the companies act was formulated if you can
I will leave the debate to others if they really want to continue.
I have stated how I have already voted and that is my right.
By the way here is an interesting link: I am not sure that the directors have done any of this well.
http://www.inc.com/kevin-daum/7-things-really-amazing-communicators-do.html
Over to the rest of you.
