Of course there has been significant progression but how do you...

Of course there has been significant progression but how do you attribute “value”. Is it a warm and fuzzy thing inside that gives you confidence and belief?

I would argue that the only measurable for performance is a market capitalisation and share price. Roughly without looking back we’ve gone from a mark cap 12 mths ago of $70M. Market Cap 12mths of $120M. Let’s call it 100% increase yet the non-execs remuneration increases close to 900%.

I know $50k an invested around this time last year isn’t worth $450k.

I would also argue that they are putting their hand up on a future promise.

How do you know they will secure finance? How do you know they will not have to give half the resource away? How do you know that they won’t come back next year given clause 6.5(b)(iii) in the proposed constitution and give themselves twice, three times and much, four times as much? How do you know they won’t continue to issue themselves shares and options until they all are on the edge of the 5% holding for independence of directors? How do you know there won’t be more delays and they will need to issue another 100m shares to a Hong Kong institution (who are no longer on the register).

You don’t and the board don’t - so how about a remuneration package that is in line with the reality of the company.

Besides Paul, I highly doubt the current non-execs have the skill set or ability to get this into production. Do any have any experience in managing $1B in debt? I certainly wouldn’t won’t them managing $1B in finances and I’m sure if you look at any company that has gone from junior to a billion company, there were directors with very specific skills.

I think Paul deserves a significant kicker as I have already mentioned however the board are a collective and collectively they are way off from what the reality is. For you to state otherwise is irresponsible as a shareholder.

Regarding your comment regarding the board performance and our own greed, I don’t know what planet you live on but the shareholders own the company and as such, the AGM and voting on resolutions are the shareholders voice. You have a very strange concept of greed in saying that directors should see massive benefits before the owners of the company.

I would propose the board come back next year I’m sure if the share price is $1.00, shareholders will all be “less greedy” and be happy to vote for the directors “less greedy” proposal for remuneration of 1M bonus shares each. But wait that’s only a million dollars for each of them for free, not $5 million they'd receive upon conversion of options. Greed much??