More serious issues than the name change, page-5

Based upon a quick review, at this stage I'm contemplating to vote no on several resolutions, including the following but not necessarily limited to those that I'm mentioning here.

Resolution 3
Change of Company Name
Vote = NO
I've posted my views on this issue previously

Resolution 4
Adoption of Conditional Rights Plan
Vote  = NO

This is simply a preamble to facilitate Resolution 5

Resolution 5
Grant of Conditional Rights to Dr R Murdoch
Vote = No

Milestones are too soft and benefits are too generous.
If he can't do what is set out he needs to be given the chop.

Example - Milestone 1 for up to 33% of rights
Only needs to satisfy two of five possible conditions to get half of these rights... That should be a no brainer. Condition  #4 =  Selection of a new priority molecule...

Resolution 6
Approval of of rights to Dr R Murdoch on Accelerated Event...
Vote = NO
The low thresholds set out for a merger or takeover means his benefits are not aligned to shareholders. In my opinion the business could get sold cheap, Murdoch could get rewarded for a crap deal and shareholders get screwed. We could be left like the proverbial bride at the alter, a potential takeover suitor normally does so because they recognize the price for acquisition is cheap compared to possible pay back.

I don't want to see the benefits of my investment be sold off cheaply, and in particular I don't want to reward our CEO for doing so.