I still don't feel management’s intention is to fleece...

I still don't feel management’s intention is to fleece shareholders

I certainly take on board and agree with many of the points posters have made and that clarification needs to be given.

My post was made in a hurry. I am in another time zone and was not in a position at the time to write a more detailed post. I posted because I felt that maybe some would receive some reassurance from Terrys response and that there was more to the plan than met the eye.

I didn’t cover a lot of points that I raised in my email and I wholeheartedly agree there are many more question marks that need to addressed. To me what was on the table was a "big ask"……. and required a "giant leap of faith" …..“200m was an awful lot of shares to be used at their discretion” " How are the options calculated - and their exercise price?"

I feel that the board may be in as much of a shock at the shareholders reaction to what they have put on the table as we are in disbelief at their proposals. This “shock” is due to their naivety …….how could their proposal be seen in any other light….. since fleecing shareholders was never on their agenda. 200m may well have been just as good a figure as 400m – since in their minds they were always going to manage these shares ethically and fairly. Nevertheless as shareholders we do need to protect ourselves and 200m shares is a lot…...

Since I am not in the US environment and not familiar with incentive schemes, I wanted to know whether the proposed plan was in alignment with other comparison companies. My thought is that if the board believes that what they are asking is aligned with what other directors/CEOs are getting in a “hot” environment where everyone in is big demand surely this proposal should be in line with expectations. Put up your hand anyone who would accept $10per hr when everyone is getting $20per hr. I have a strong belief in valuing yourself appropriately.

I think it is important to align staff rewards with shareholders rewards. For me I purchased SSNO in Dec 2009 when they were 0.016 or thereabouts. Now if purchased 1 million of SSNO I would have spent $16,000 and if I had sold them in March 2011 when they were 0.21 I would have got $210,000 – not bad - but on the face of it Terry didn’t get that much more than me – for making it happen – he got the $250,000 bonus in December 2011. Of course this means very little to shareholders who bought in at over 0.15 but I am trying to align staff rewards with shareholders rewards. We had the potential to make a lot of money – so they should as well. Many shareholders have made a lot of money on SSN

I feel it is important not to put a low SP and this proposal in the same basket. Surely management would like the SP to be much higher than it is and are as frustrated just as we are. There are metrics that are used to put forward plans such as these and these need to be explained in plain, simple English. Let’s see Terrys’ response on how these proposals have been calculated and if there are thresholds that need to be hurdled - otherwise nothing will be paid.

Sandys – I appreciated your last post and rational reply and apologies for maybe jumping the gun.