QBL EGM, page-16

Hmm ... I believe that some statements made in this post are open to further scrutiny.

Specifically, I have some concerns around this claim, "... address a post that has been placed in here that has misinformation about the capability of the Directors of QBL."

In my view, if you are not able to cite the specific post that substantiates this rather egregious claim, then this is, in fact, little more that an unsubstantiated claim made on your part?

Firstly, @corona asked a question about the bauxite map.

Is there an answer available for that question please?

Secondly, I made a series of points re the bauxite projects and used company announcements from past years past to substantiate my questions.

Is there any response available for those questions please?

Thirdly, "... they are very large shareholders in the company and want to see massive shareholder wealth being created, not lost."

Irrespective of the size of any persons holding - the available evidence that I have is, in fact, to the contrary. Even having conducted cursory research of this company it seems apparent to me that there has been little improvement in shareholder wealth. I understand 'shareholder wealth' as something distinct from the share price. Measurable items such as EPS and ROI - as examples.

Terms such as, "passion" and 'enthusiasm' and however else one applies certain adjectives to shape an image of one's intent - public companies are open to scrutiny and there are accepted measures of quantifiable commercial data that enable and enhance that scrutiny. The following is but one of those measures.

https://shareprices.com.au/company/au/asx/qbl/statistics
Management Effectiveness Ratios

	Turnover Ratios
1	Turnover	Asset	Inventory	Receivables
2	Most Recent Fiscal Year	0.02	N/A	2.35
3	Trailing 12 Months	0.02	N/A	0.89

	Return On Averages
1	Return on Average	Assets	EBITD	Equity	Investment
2	Most Recent Fiscal Year	-16.77	-	-19.42	-19.42
3	Trailing 12 Months	-42.79	-	-46.29	-50.31
4	5 Year Average	-26.85	-	-30.50	-30.49

	Employee Returns
1	Employees	Net Income	Revenue
2	Most Recent Fiscal Year	N/A	N/A
3	Trailing 12 Months	N/A	N/A

Note : the negative numbers and there is no measure for "passion".

I am unsure as to what you are referring to when you use the term "shareholder wealth"? The above are fairly common metrics.

Maybe you might be in a position to offer some further guidance as to what shareholders could look for in how the board has produced "shareholder wealth"!

And then there is this;
"With regards to the pay of the current management, we have noted many times on this forum, that the pay of the current management is, in fact, lower than the average in this industry for ASX cannabis companies, and in some cases, disproportionately lower."

To my mind - the issue has never been a question of remuneration. It has been a question of "related party transactions" as they are noted in the financial reports issued by the company. I believe that it is disingenuous, a best, to 'morph' questions aimed specifically at 'related party transactions' into an issue of directors remuneration. Let me state very clearly - I am not interested in directors remuneration. However, it would be nice to know how much AGMPL have been paid over the previous 10 years. Can you supply that figure? I ask this question in light of QBL's commitment to, "transparency".

And this;

"To QBL shareholders and new Investors, please be careful about what you read on Social media as it appears that many do not understand the role of the Feldman's"

I agree, well ... mostly! However, I would add that shareholders and new investors (is there a difference between the two?) ought to be careful about what they read anywhere!

Again, I think that the case for an independent board chair and additional independent board members is long overdue.

The ASX recommend an independent board chair in their document, 'Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations". This is from page 14 of that document.

"A high performing, effective board is essential for the proper governance of a listed entity. The board needs to have an appropriate number of independent non-executive directors who can challenge management and hold them to account, and also represent the best interests of the listed entity and its security holders as a whole rather than those of individual security holders or interest groups."

https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/cgc-principles-and-recommendations-3rd-edn.pdf

Does anyone wonder why they might recommend this as a key part of Corporate Governance principles?