It’s amazing that this blog generates so little constructive...

It’s amazing that this blog generates so little constructive dialogue.

People seem to get excited by the minutiae of PaperlinX when the elephant in the room is its balance sheet. It (the balance sheet) must scare the company’s bankers and suppliers.

PaperlinX PIGS has put forward eight possibilities on how to “Fix PaperlinX” http://paperlinxpigs.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/fixing-paperlinx/ and it attracted only a brief exchange here between stewa & firsova.

There was also a poll which is available at the same address. Only 3% of respondents, albeit from a modest sample, voted for “do nothing”.

Here is a comment by firsova “The directors of PPX have an obligation to running the business for the shareholders of PPX, and not PXUPA holders.”

This is grossly misleading. The directors have a duty of care to many parties. The hybrids are special because of how they were issued. Another elephant in a crowded room!

In a recent post firsova said:

“most of the noise coming from hybrid holders is from new buyers with agendas outside what is best for the company as their motive”.

Firsova, two specific questions about this quote:

(1) Do you include PaperlinX PIGS in this category? If so, please explain why in detail.

(2) Do you realise your self contradiction between this and the earlier quote above?

This isn't a personal attack on firsova for whom I hold affection as a regular and polite contributor, but an attempt to clarify facts vs opinion.

PaperlinX PIGS has a constructive and published agenda –

“that any outcome for PXUPA holders is fair and equitable.”

Most likely this will require votes by PPX and PXUPA holders to resolve the current imbroglio.

We (PIGS) simply seek to inform PXUPA holders about the facts.

IMO, if this forum is to have any relevance it ought to be focussed on the “big issue” facts about PaperlinX. This requires hard work and analysis, not flippancy.

An Invitation

If anyone is prepared to work hard and be subject to critical internal peer review then I invite you to apply for membership of the PIGS steering committee. You know where I am. Unlike others I don't hide behind a pseudonym.

What about the good news?

Today ProPrint published recent changes in Spicers ANZA management structure http://www.proprint.com.au/News/346557,spicers-restructures-management-in-wa-and-appoints-new-australian-head.aspx

Andy Preece and Ken Booth are both good men doing positive things. I've done my homework on them. Not a word on Hot Copper for good old “down to earth” local management making incremental changes, but much excitement about a recent pissant acquisition in Sweden.

If PaperlinX had another 20 of Andy Preece and Ken Booth style managers in key markets then operationally the business would be in good hands, BUT its balance sheet would still be distressed.

Elephants move slowly but surely.