@actionnaire
"The one thing I do know, and I have first hand experience to be able back this statement up is, that Is if the major shareholder's or those that keep investing large sums and by that I mean, those involved in the capital raising and current major shareholder's were not happy with Paul's performance as the Chairman he would be gone."In most cases I would agree with you, but what you need to factor into the IMU equation is the amount of market capital that the Chair has used to protect himself. In all of the capital raises (with the possible exception of the last one, but to give any credence to that is to accept the Chair selling shares at 45c only to raise capital at 5.6c two years later) the Chair has offered these so called but nameless "major shareholders or those that keep investing large sums" a steep discount and free options that have enabled them to flip the stock for a stag profit.
To these investors his "performance as the Chairman" in terms of advancing IMU is irrelevant. All they care about is his ability to offer them these stag profits, hence they have no incentive (and probably no votes since they have almost certainly sold there shares) to dismiss the Chair. Remember that not a single substantial shareholder has been added since the Mann Family, and they were added prior to the run up to 60c.
He's done the same for himself, his fellow directors and his management team - trading market cap for cash (at a horrendous exchange rate) in order to buy their continued support. After two years of ridiculous remuneration for achieving nothing how can Monil Shah be on anything but a success-fee arrangement? After 8 years of failing to elicit any BP interest to even be involved in a combination trial, how can Leslie still be at the helm, let alone on the insane remuneration that she is?
Anyway, no slanging match, just offering a perspective regarding what I believe to be the biggest impediments to the company realising its potential value.
(20min delay)