Please..., page-3

Thee anesthetics/drugs are well and truely starting to wear off now, so I have rung and had a conversation with Alex, and we agreed to disagree. Basically it comes down to yes mistakes were made in the past but we have to talk and look at the future to be able to incentivise the right people and a more mature company offers performance rights instead of options, hence why performance rights have been added.

Added mind you, not replaced.

I totally disagree with the entire notion that you need to incentivise people to work well for you. My experience as an employer has been you get good people and poor people and if you offered them freebie options bonuses or whatever all they do is work for them and not necessarily in the interests of the company/employer.

We are at the back end of the mining boom as people pointed out this morning where there is high unemployment. Getting a good long term stable job should be enough by itself, and the notion of "industry practise" does not rub with me at all.

The imdustry practise is wrong and about time it was stopped. If we were the first to stop it, I believe we would GAIN credence from many funds and end up being a more popular company for shareholders to hold shares in.

W Buffett does not believe in these sort of freebies and the companies he has a large shareholding do not offer them. His attitude is that it should be enough incentive for his managers to buy into the company and add value to their shares by increasing profits.
It is about time we started that here, and in the past there has been way too many freebies at a cost to our current share price. If there were 200m less options that were cheap and converted and sold, then less dilution would see us with a higher market cap.

Performance rights AS WELL AS options, no, no thank you at all. I still totally believe that resolution 3 should be thrown out as it adds the possibility of MORE freebies.

I started this thread as I believe the company is now, sorry let me rephraise that. People in high positions within the company are now spending time and effort to defend Resolution 3 that is just not defendable given the companies history.

The Chairman last year in April voted the proxies in favour of getting extra options to all 'entitled' to them. That included himself.
The Chairman on this occasion intends to vote all unallocated proxies in favour of this motion.
In my world the Chairman should not be able to vote nor direct proxies to a positive vote at all, as he could be a recipient of these freebies.

That is STOPPED if you simply vote NO so that your vote DIRECTS the Chairman how to vote your proxy.
I've been getting emails about this, and it seems some people are confused over giving the Chair their proxy. If you have ticked the NO box below then it is a directed proxy and the chairman must vote No for those proxies.

If you leave the box blank, then he can vote however he wants and it is already indicated he will be voting Yes.
In my world of doing the right thing, the Chair SHOULD be abstaining from voting the unallocated votes.

I have had indications from LARGE holders that they will be voting NO, we should all be supporting that.