Sequen Mate, don't waste your time trying to change the Cottee...

Sequen

Mate, don't waste your time trying to change the Cottee (OptionCo) supporters, by using truth and logic.

They have their position and it was (is) to run a campaign where they wanted ( and want) Mr Cottee to remain and they ran such a thin campaign, on policy and platform, ( ie we will recover the $2 Mil) that it was doomed to fail.

How and where the company was expected to recover $2 Mil from was beyond comprehension,.

The company entered into an agreement ( by the lawful directors) that the company would pay the approximate amount of $2mil to run the SOA vote.

Certainly could not recover from MacQuaire Bank as the money was NOT paid to MacQuaire Bank , it was paid BY CTP on behalf of CTP to various entities such as Computer share and the EY expert reports etc.

So please explain where does the money get recovered from, the Company paid it and optionco wanted to recover it from the company !! Really ??

Such public decisions ( and positions) did and do not inspire confidence.

It is beyond my comprehension that a group of people would support the Cottee board after all the contradictions in positions by the Board (via Mr Cottee)

Hence the reason why after reaching out to optionco and not receiving any response the ND Team decided to stand back and allow the shareholders to make any decisions they wanted to make on the basis of the material presented by the company and optionco

So anything they say should be viewed as running a campaign to retain the existing board. (there are clearly shareholders who genuinely supported optionco) but the strident and vociferous ones clearly have an agenda.

Such comments they make are potentially destructive of the shareholders value, BUT such people would rather drown out reason and logic.

The fact that they rolled up the resolutions by seeing the removal of a director and replacing with another also is a common tactics to ensure that vote fails.

People do not like being told that they have a limited choice of replacement, ie) Mr Hubbard off and Mr Goodall on.

What they should have done was to seek the removal of Mr Hubbard, as one resolution and then another resolution for the removal of Mr Gasteen and then another for the removal of Mr Moore.

Then they should have had separate resolution for the appointment of Mr Goodall and then another resolution for the appointment of Mr Bolkus and so on.

That way the shareholders would have been able to vote for the removal of any candidate (or retain them) and it would have allowed the shareholders to appoint who they saw fit.

I realise that would have ended up with 7 on the board but if that's what the shareholders wanted, then that's what they would have got.

What they appear to seek to do is destroy (either unintentionally or deliberately) any sensible chance of board changes with appropriate and qualified candidates.

CB