Letter recieved by shareholder, page-14

Directors can only direct proxies which are open – in other words if a shareholder indicates how they wish to vote any person appointed as a proxy holder must vote in accordance with that shareholder's wishes – being appointed a proxy does not give the proxy holder the right to vote how they wish.

It appears that the maths is relatively simple viz -
At the AGM approximately
260 million shares voted for certain resolutions and that included
Sage with 78 million,
Gullf with 94 million and
60 million from the sale of shares from the administrator
total 232 million –
thus about only 28 million of the "free float" (unassociated shareholders) voted for those resolutions.

On the other hand there were approximately 100 million shares against resolutions.

There are 720 million shares on issue and from the above it can be seen that approx 360 million shares voted – approximately 50%.

Thus it only needs less than half of the remainder shareholders to vote for his removal and - given that they have not previously been provided with full information and it appears that they now have been given with a balanced view - a rational person would expect common sense to prevail - as well as the self-interest of shareholders in trying to obtain / restore some shareholder value.

Furthermore considerable doubt exists about the ability of Gulf to vote their shares – see other posts.