The result, page-62

flogit.....u backed up what i said. a board that has no expertise to have checks and balances, to counter and critically analyse what it's key managements goals, strategies and objectives are, to not have expertise within the board to determine the integrity and reality of the transactions - is just not doing its job properly. directors who cant do this have seriously failed. you cant say i did not know as a director unless they can prove a fraudulent transaction. we entrust our money to directors to oversee and hold management to account. to be proactive not reactive. i dont speak for any individuals on the board. i am talking collectively as it was a collective failure. that is my point. boyle is an executive - his job is always to maximise the companies interests. the reality was balama just did not deliver. boyle kept promises he could not deliver in hindsight.....but it was a reasonable approach in real time. this is why though boyle is at adv, check out the credentials of the directors on the board. this is why investors follow experienced directors. this is why higgo was aggressive after he stepped in. this is why people from instos with large stake have their own personnel on board - to provide greater oversight. the positive us ton has had a shake up and has come thru against the odds. at least it should be well governed which will promote confidence. part of the issue is incentives following offtake agreements being formed - this is useless as what if it falls through?