""((Democracy for good or bad is the situation where the entire country can be governed for 3 years by a crowd with typically 51 or 52% of the overall vote count. ))""
Haasko, may I suggest that you wrong in saying what you did.?? For, when was the last time that any Government actually achieved the 51 or 52% of the overall votes, if the usual preferences were not to be applie.?? Does those voters voting for another Party actually supported in principle to support one of the two major parties or not.??? I rest my case now.
""((With an SoA, the outcome can readily highjacked by a minority core, but thems are the rules. However a 67% vote in favour clearly constitutes a solid vote of confidence in the current board. I would remark also that the address from the Chair following the vote carried an admirably positive message, delivered with a restraint sadly lacking in the postings of the critics.))""
Again Haasko, you are wrong here as you (you especially), should knew very well that that protection has been put in place to protect shareholders from the sharks swimming around the water of the Boards and the listed companies doing the biddings.
You should also know that these SoA have been introduced to protect shareholders because Boards and bidding companies knows full well that it is a hell of a lot easier for a bidding company to take FULL control of a company via an SoA, than getting in a full and open takeover.
You should also know that SoA's were introduced during times when some companies were in financial difficulties and where the Creditors were to apply accordingly in order to get their money, or some of it, back. Yet again, and here in Australia mainly, someone came up with the idea (and successfully mind you) to apply it in order to take full control of a company without going out and do an open Takeover.
You shouldn't also need my help in telling/reminding you of the risk of going out openly and make a Takeover that, when, if the bidding company will not succeed in getting at least 90% of the total shares on issue and then legally enforce a compulsory acquisition for the remaining 10%, or running the risk of having to deal with the remaining shareholder until they will decide to sell at their own free will. Something which, in the case of a SoA all they will need 75% of the total shares "VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION", to achieve their goal. A heel of a difference if you ask me, so there is no grounds at all for you to say that only a minority core highjacked the SoA.
But where does a modicum of responsibility lie? I imagine the self appointed purveyors of unsolicited and naïve advice ($100m from shadowy Asian and American sources on the basis of an MOU, who is kidding who here????)
With that Haasko I agree with you fully. That $100 million USD (Not AUD mind you), if something that will not float even if we are to strap several layers of floaties around them. Perhaps now the time has come for them to go to work and prove to us within the next week or so how reliable and truthful those comments are. Myself I wouldn't want to hold my breath for too long because I am sure that you know what the consequences of it all will be.
""(( Little or no congratulations from those, I suspect.
But at least this vote provides a strong indication that this board will prevail over any various 249D requisitions.))""
You are right in saying what you did but, you should know full well that no Board can last, nor survive and live in harmony while doing their jobs, if these Sect.249D are constantly coming in, or if and when the Remuneration Resolution are to be voted upon. And that is once a year mind you with the first one coning up before the end of this year.
If they are to survive, IMHO they will have to start pulling the finger out and start making the shareholders happy, not just sitting on it anymore.
I personally think that the one doing the most whinging are the short term punters who were punting for the SoA to come so that they could collect on their winnings regardless of the poor long term investors which were looking down the barrels of a loaded 12 gauge shotgun.
Unfortunately for these ST punters they have lost and now aren't happy at all. On the other hand if they were to win, the Long term investors would have lost. Either way it was always on the card that one or the others were going to loose. The SHORT termers lost....
(20min delay)