thoughts on current events, page-55

Some guy, there are two parts to your posts, and I will reply, to the best of my knowledge, in separate ways.

Sorry for the long post but I have to try to be as explicit as possible here.

""after all the hystrionics and machinations over at Gunnedah with ESG ... who'd have thought we'd be plunged straight into this maelstrom .. the emerging engergy can certainly be interesting!""

To the part above, I believe that if you are to read properly into what I just posted as a reply to Ravi, you would find your answer in there.

It is my honest opinion that, we could be screwed again in a bad way while this Board will retain their place, as IMO they will try anything now to stay there while getting rid of JH.
It would be a big smack in their faces if they were to be dismissed altogether from the Board, and it wouldn't look very good in their future resumes when they will apply for future Board's positions. Hence why I now repeat that they will do anything to fight and avoid their dismissal.

I simply, and for the life of me, can't fathom as to why there are so many investors posting here that are dead set in their minds that this Board is the best thing since sliced bread, when, IMO, it couldn't be further from the truth. Most importantly people seem to forget, (unless they haven't got the knowledge of how Company Boards work), that most decisions in regard to how a Company is to be run, (any Company for that matter), is decided behind the closed doors of the Boardroom, and the CEO is the one that is nominated to fire the bullets that have been previously loaded by the Board itself.

As such, I am of the opinion that the sooner we will get rid of this dead wood, the better for us all.

If there is anyone outb there that can tell me, or show me, what this Board has done over the umpteen years that the have held those positions, besides collecting emoluments and keeping their seats warm, and that it was all worthwhile to get us to what we are today, I may change my mind. But definitely not before. And don't forget that JH is only one of the four in that Boardroom. Yes, he may have a say, but is that say big enough to sway the other three ideas?

----

""Now, if you were offered more stock with ctp ~10 cents would you take it up ?""

SG, that is hard question to answer. Especially with what is going on right now. I probaly wouldn't, but it is hard to say it straight out now. The reason that I have participated before was because JH was there. Now he is not. To me, that means a lot.
Besides, I don't believe that this time around we will be allowed to get a look into this CR, as, if you are to read my previous post, this CR IMO has not been done to protect shareholders, but themselves.
And, as if they are allowed to do this CR now I can't say, and I may have to try and raise this question with my Barrister friend and see if they are allowed to do so. IMHO, they may be allowed to do so if the EGM for their removal will not be called, but, if the EGM will be requisitioned by the shareholders, I have my doubts that they will be allowed to do it, until the resolution has been put to the vote. If that happens, the board will only be allowed to stay there in a caretaker mode.
Hence why, IMHO, they are doing what they are doing now and in such a hurry. Even blind Freddie could see this coming.

As for the 15% that they can raise without shareholders approvals, as it has been circulated around here over the last couple of days, what we fail to realise is that a CR was done not so long ago. And, IMHO, the next capital raising would have to be contained within the limits allowed of the 15% as per current regulations, including the previous capital raise. If it is in excess of the 15%, the CR would have to go to an EGM to get it approved first before becoming legal. If the EGM votes against the shares issued, that issue will become invalid and the shares will have to be returned to the company treasury. Bear also in mind though, that the allottee of those shares is not allowed to vote for that resolution.
I honestly can't remember having being asked to vote to reinstate the Company to the 15% position after the last CR, and as such, I am of the belief that they can't do that. I may clarify that a little better. They can do it, but it is not valid, nor legally binding, until the shareholders will approve the transaction.

The plot thickens if you ask me.

Sorry to be so long in my reply to you and the ones that may be interested.

Cheers,
Buddy