My gut feel is Morten and Biddle "had other commitments" because they either do not support PB or are taking a view that PB created the mess and he needs to wear the crowds disgust in every sense? (Having Paul front up unsupported could be part of Biddle's strategy to have Paul finally accept he made the mess and needs to go sooner. Its what I would do as a reality check if Paul B was still under the delusion he had done a fantastic job and everyone loved him) It speaks volumes that they both were not there to stand beside and physically support Paul. (Neil was being diplomatic to say Paul "is not the man to take this forward" and "the project should have been up and running by now"
Let's give Biddle (Morten and Robinson) a chance, he needs to clear the decks, immediately provide shareholders with an accurate update on all outstanding operational matters and timeframes to rebuild shareholder trust.
Regards a comment above that Biddle was "only just" retained as a Director in Resolution 5 and inference along the lines of a motion at the AGM. Let's not confuse this with resolution 5 that was to remove all those appointed since the 249d was instigated. Many voted early with Liz Henson also in mind and in a fit of rage so as to vote FOR for everything.
Im sure in normal circumstances at any AGM in if Neil Biddle's name was on the ticket, the votes would be nothing like they were in Resolution 5. He has been in the seat a short time, the CMT and other shareholders have given him the authority to swing the axe... It was never going to be easy pushing Paul out straight away. remember he is an employee of the company and subject to different Industrial Relations frameworks than Directors like John E and Liz H...
TNG Price at posting:
9.0¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
