Originally posted by noid222
Thanks for the groundwork mate.
I spoke to Russell on Friday (texted his mobile and got a call back). Didn’t mention the HC plan of calling a meeting.
Spoke about departure of MD and change in direction, mostly fluff talk really. Bit of blame shifting, i.e. not BoD’s fault.
Doesn’t want to raise capital at this low SP. said previous CR’s prove the point. They do, mostly prove his point IMO.
Also spoke about 3G Coal, wasn’t entirely satisfied with his answer as to why our MTC directors are focusing on another IPO. That said, only reason I have an issue with it is because of languishing MTC SP, normally I would not care how many boards a director is involved with so long as those companies perform.
The positive, he and Gino have plenty of equity in MTC and he knows it’s in their best interest to make something happen. He assured me they’re in this for the long gaul and with shareholder support (believes he has the support of Top 20) will make something happen.
Thanks for sharing Noid, I'm glad that they responded and appreciate you sharing that with us. Not impressed with the blame shifting, its the BoD responsibility to hold management accountable and serve the company. Re: Previous CR doesn't say much because that was then when the SP was around the CR price (which is what people were willing to pay then) and this is now, investors have voted with their money and their money says MTC is worth 4.4c. Does it mean it actually is worth 4.4c? maybe not although votes are in and that's what they're willing to pay.
It would be good to know about his 3G Coal response. I do think that saying he has a lot of equity is such a cop out, most companies are that way, with founders having large equity and stakes - so why would they go public with MTC then if in the long haul? the ratio of amount of capital they have collected vs spent on exploration is skewed towards the former (most exploration costs are covered by equity, same as acquisition of tenements) it allows them to collect an income which they may not have, or have a market to sell their shares to (which they had when floated - which gave the money to the company - which they collect as a salary) - that fact that he mentions that we should rest assured because they both have a high stake usually makes me believe he can't think of any other reason to inspire shareholder confidence, you know, like...improvement in company performance perhaps (and by performance not just SP)?
Originally posted by Chair-Face
Hi Spoilt, Can I suggest we start by using our collective votes to have the board answer a series of questions put together by us concerned shareholders.? If we present them with the questions 1 week before the AGM, then have them release an ANN or something on their website with the answers?
There's a few questions I have and it would be good to have answers through an official channel so that the board has to answer them honestly and then can be held accountable.
Perhaps the questions can be accompanied by a list of shareholder concerns.
What do you think?
I'm in total agreement with this - I think from the responses it seems we will open dialogue.
As shareholders I don't think we're entirely unreasonable and a lot of us have been quite patient with how things have been going, we can accept poor results from tenements, although poor investor relations and corporate strategy is unacceptable when that's all they do.
Yes I think that would be great to have a public response, and collectively have an open letter with questions and concerns prior to the AGM.
Would you be open to sharing questions and concerns here? Or shall we have them all sent to an email address so shareholders are able to send them through in confidence?
(20min delay)