For what it’s worth, beyond the qualifications and experience that have already been outlined in this post, these are the reasons that I will be voting for Mr Richard Campbell:
1/ But for the actions of Mr Campbell we would probably still be sitting around with our fingers crossed hoping that Mr Pursell saw the light (not to mention being asked to dig our hands into our pockets again to raise more capital for the DP gravy train). Mr Campbell has been instrumental in bringing some of the disgraceful practices at JRV to light. To me, this has taken a lot of courage (it would have been a lot easier and less stressful to have resigned, particularly given the personal smear campaign that has been run against him by the JRV camp). While Mr Campbell may stand to ultimately gain from any deal with CRR, I would suggest that there might be easier ways for him to make money, if that is what it’s about – ones that don’t add quite as many grey hairs. This says to me that Mr Campbell is a man of principle who not only has the interests of shareholders at heart, but wants to see that the law is upheld. Obviously, he has a better understanding of the Corporations Act and its policy underpinnings than many other Co Directors. Surely this is the type of ethical conduct that should be rewarded in the corporate environment.
2/ I believe it wise to retain SOME continuity on the board. Why on earth would you want to get rid of the person who has been so closely associated with bringing the Chinese to the table? It is obvious that Mr Campbell has built a productive relationship with CRR and DL management. This means that if there is still the chance of a deal being done with CRR by Mr Campbell being on the Board, he should stay. If he fails to deliver then at least he has: put in place a new Board of governance that will be beneficial to ALL shareholders; and, brought the current unbelievably despotic family-oriented management to account. In addition, while I acknowledge that Mr Campbell’s corporate memory may not be as long as others, it is corporate memory nonetheless – a valuable asset that can’t be bought. For one, this means he will not allow the same mistakes to be made again. If he fails to introduce what he claims he can, then no doubt I would expect him to be man enough to offer to the shareholders his resignation at the next GM and let them decide if they wanted him to stay and help bring the Young project to feasibility.
3/ As Mr Campbell has stated above, he is part of a ticket. Indeed, the way I see it, if not for Mr Campbell’s actions, Mr Norm Seckold might not even be running, or heaven forbid, not even be aware of the terrible financial situation that the company finds itself in (except for the dead give-away of the "loyal shareholders” contributing through endless share issues). As it stands, it would appear that Mr Seckold is keen for Mr Campbell to be a part of the new JRV team and therefore believes he has a valuable contribution to make. That itself might be reason enough for some to want to keep him on.
Beyond that, I believe that the tone of your last question removes credibility to what you have contributed. To even raise the issue of corruption is offensive: why would you say that after explaining yourself so fluently? (And no doubt Mr Campbell, DL and CRR would also find such a statement offensive). Mr Campbell and his associates obviously have extensive experience dealing with the Chinese – this kind of experience doesn’t just materialise overnight. No matter how they achieved introduction of this company they have brought CRR to the table – an F500 company at that. There is a saying "the harder you work, the luckier you get". Indeed, DL actually managed to take two companies to Pursell. The first was a company called Guang Ye – one of the largest government companies in South China (as told to us by Pursell). Mr Campbell, and his partners, being a private company, have achieved what they were obviously contracted to do through their hard work and long-term China contacts and dealings. Pursell was obviously very pleased with them until Mr Campbell backed Ms Melanie Leydin in questioning accountability. To me, Mr Campbell has contributed much more in his four months on the board than Pursell. Pursell will leave with a great number of questions that MUST be answered. Mr Campbell in the last two years has brought hope of finance for a feasibility study. Pursell and Mr Mal Jensen to this day have brought to their "loyal shareholders" what? Sorry, still no golden fleece.
Mr Campbell, assisted by Ms Leydin, has done much more than Pursell has ever managed to do in his decades at the helm of JRV which, hopefully, are about to come to an end.
I don’t even want to read between the lines to think that you might just have some ulterior motive. You have at least developed some interesting discussion about extraction and that is good.
JRV Price at posting:
0.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)