spicer69I know you welcome discussion, so here's some on the...

spicer69

I know you welcome discussion, so here's some on the independent director matter that you raised.

Parts of today's financial report were written by the author of Alice in Wonderland.

The report states that Solagran has adopted the ASX's 10 principles of good corporate governance and best practice.

Recommendation 2.1 of those principles states that the majority of the Board should be independent directors.

The SLA report says that Mr Peter Stedwell is the only independent director on the board.

Peter Stedwell is also described on the Solagran web page as "Executive Director - Finance". The accounts in today's report show that he holds 930,000 Solagran shares (bet you'd like to have that amount, Epitanman). He received $96,000 in consulting fees. Yet the SLA report describes him as an independent director.

What is an independent director, in the views of the ASX's principles?

Box 2.1 states that an independent director is a non-executive director, is not a substantial shareholder of the company, within the last three years has not been employed in an executive capacity by the company, within the last three years has not been . . . a material consultant to the company.

I am not commenting on Mr Peter Stedwell, who obviously does his best as a director of Solagran and acts in the interests of the company and shareholders. What I am commenting on is the smoke and mirrors of the Solagran Board, which in one breath state that they have adopted the 10 principles and in the next breath assert that Peter Stedwell is an independent director.

Perhaps it is not Alice in Wonderland but Alice Through the Looking Glass [and Smoke].