keeping pmm honest, page-6

Boomerbust,

From my understanding, if PMM get two board members in, then they WILL have control of the company, because their nominated Chairman Mr Piercy, holds the deciding vote in any deadlock. I'm pretty sure that's what I read in their original letter to shareholders.

If PMM do get 2 board members, then without an independant CEO as the 5th board member, there is no one to look after the interests of the other 55% or so of GWR holders.

Alas the likelyhood of finding a truelly independant chairman is about as likely as snow in the Sahara. Any likely candidates nominated by either side, would doubtlessly be hand picked stooges acting on behalf of either FAS or PMM.

I my opinion, the best option is leave the current board mostly intact, and add a PMM member as the 5th Director.

I believe Con should stay, maybe not as Chairman, but he has been acting in the best interests of GWR holders. He was against the takeover with FAS and he opposes PMM slinking in the backdoor without paying the GWR holders a premium. as for the other 3 Directors, if one wanted to stand asside and make room for an independant Chaiman, then we would have an even representation of all Shareholders. FAS as the biggest Holder, would have 2 directors, PMM 1, and GWR would have 2.

I for one would feel a lot more secure about my investment, with a balanced board, than I would with PMM in control.

As to the non refundable 800k paid as a deposit on JD's tenements. It's not an issue if GWR do purchase the tenements. It's then just a part of the sale price. I believe that they are a reasonable buy considering that the ore within them will be worth a lot more the asking price.

Or would it be better to let someone else buy up these leases, Miss out on the ore, and lose out on mining GWR ore that can't be mined due to the proximity of the boundries.

To vote against purchasing the tenements, would just be hurting ourselves in the long run.

have a nice day
Sir Incognito