I don't buy into Naish's claim that the calls, etc. are a sign....

I don't buy into Naish's claim that the calls, etc. are a sign. My experience this is part of the process to ensure they get the overall number of votes needed for the results to be valid.

Having said that, the language used in the supplemental is rather odd. In fact, the statement below (from the supplemental) is a bit offensive because it’s akin to a gun to the head. Either give us the money we want or we’ll do something to hurt the company and shareholders. Why do I find this offensive? It isn’t just the gun to the head. Perhaps more disturbing is that Alan doesn’t want to consider incentives that truly have our interest aligned. Share-price based incentives focus too much on short-term share price and open the door to more pumping. Units sold, margin/profitability, and revenue are much better incentives that will drive share price and true shareholder value. Perhaps the agreements coming will take care of it all. Regardless, I’d still rather have an incentive package that has better metrics.

----------
Without the availability of equity for this purpose, it is likely that a cash structure will be used. No stockholder approval will be required for this purpose. As noted above with respect Proposal 5, if more of our cash resources are devoted to compensation, our ability to implement necessary capital investments may be compromised.