don't be conned by the board's statement

In defence of the Invisible Chairman the board have made some ludicrous remarks in their response to the statement from requisitioning shareholders.

The board seem to be content to believe that the share price has performed in the last four years. Try telling that to any shareholder who bought into either of the share placements (at $1.25 & $1.15) or even the rights issue at $1.03. If that is performance that they are content with, then in my opinion that equates to telling a beggar on the streets of Calcutta to be content and happy with what life has dealt them.

Reference is also made to comparison to the ASX300 Energy Index. In my view, that is an irrelevant comparison. To my knowledge Molopo has not always been a component of that index for the period being analysed. Four years ago, Molopo was a highly speculative share, and one would expect it to outperform an ASX300 index. That is the compensation holders expect for taking on additional risk.

Reference is made to value realization. Shareholders have not seen any rewards from that realization. Since the placement in 2007 I think that the board have spent something like $200M. What rewards have they seen? Certainly not any share price appreciation.

There is the suggestion that should Beck and Lewin be successfully be appointed, and Beard and Hobday removed, that there will be a lack of technical experience on the board. Ian Gorman is the Chief Operating Officer, and a Director, and he has heaps of technical expertise. Additionally, boards are not expected to have the technical knowledge to operate the company. They rely on their staff having those attributes, and this is the case with Molopo. The staff have ample expertise. Boards are there to direct the company on behalf of shareholders.

There is the suggestion that Investor Relations are not the responsibility of the Chairman. He is the person in charge of the whole board and company, and it should be expected that the person holding that position does promote the company. Mr. Invisible does not, and by their response, looks to be abdicating responsibility. That is not acceptable.

If this company had been directed properly with a sense of accountability and responsibility for shareholders over the last decade, it would not still be trading at a significant discount to the true value of the assets it owns.

Mr. Invisible, we do not want excuses, we want action. This seems to evade your comprehension, and therefore you have to go.