Hi to all,
Thank you John_Utah, for replying to one of the core issues I raise. Specifically in your example, unnecessary conflict with Ganfeng. I suggest all impartial supporters of the primary nominee undertake a "fact test" and "damage test" on the whole Twitter feed to confirm that support. I don't think anyone can dismiss this material as an aberration. It provides insight into how the proposed new director thinks and operates.
Mostly, the responses I receive contain abuse, attempted intimidation, creative stories about my location and identity, and more polite countering points that are not central to my 2 concerns. Those being the transition in Mali and suitability of the replacement board. Also, it seems another strategy is to get messages deleted. I perceive that this website is a perfect Petri dish, free of dissent and fueled by bias, emotion and alternative facts within which a corporate coup can be successfully grown via retailers. This is a significant development for listed junior companies globally. Accordingly, my interest in the progress of these events is maintained.
It takes a good 20 minutes to read the replies and skim over other conversations, and then another 15 minutes to reply again, if warranted. Now, prior to posting again, I was requested to read a defamation guide after pointing out foibles that are already in the public domain, i.e. Twitter. What greater benefit is there to target one individual when there are already 100's of potentially libelous and unsubstantiated messages against the three incumbent board members in full view on this forum?
I will edit my most recently deleted message to better ensure compliance and repost it here. The message was prompted by those individuals requesting justifications. Maybe respondents who asked the questions can instead accept the explanations and debate the contentious points rather than have it deleted again.
****************
21/03/17 Edit.
Again some rather pointed replies along with the admin of this website kindly intervening to confirm that the IT wing of the Viet Cong have NOT in fact hacked information to expose my whereabouts and identity. I can assure all that I am not an insider, and have not visited Perth since I signed up here.
Some 18 months ago, when domestic supply for Chinese spodumene converters began to become constrained I bought into a few stocks with historical resources known from before the industry transition to brines in the late 80s. BGS was one of them.
The word among brokers is that the movement for the forthcoming EGM arose from this website. On that basis, I was curious enough to sign up.
Initially I figured if Kevin Joyce stayed my profits would remain solid. I have no reply to valid criticisms of indulgent performance bonuses and a poorly communicated offer for the lithium resource. However the vote at the EGM is two-sided, which means rejecting the subordinate non-managing directors AND supporting the nominees to replace them (along with an expectation that Joyce could walk).
I don't know Michael Langford and have nothing personal against him. I just find his tweets to be unbecoming of a director. I perceive much in the content that could infer hindrance to progress for a fledgling miner. For example, on the back of Albemarle announcing potential M/A activity he writes negatively about the Talison expansion with unsubstantiated claims about operational costs and depth of extraction. I would rather my director engage positively with majors and not make negative statements publicly about other industry players which are unable to be confirmed. Risks are twofold, firstly isolationism, secondly credibility. The Albemarles, Ganfengs, Tianqis, and peers should be viewed as potential suitors and partners, not nemeses. Similarly, if management in my junior copper companies started criticizing Xstrata, Rio, BHP and its own peers, I would dump the stock in a heart beat. This is not anything personal. It is business sense and risk management from my point of view. As such, I don't need to consider the merits of the McKay nominee, if I already have concerns over the Langford nominee.
I'm guessing (without inside knowledge) that Joyce will find the situation of the board changes untenable. This leads to the possibility of a sharp exit and cold turnover. The resource still needs all approvals to mine. Such a hostile and abrupt transition could cause considerable delays in Mali, where connections and relationships are everything.
It doesn't surprise me that another user of this site stated that he is a buddy of Langford and has engaged hackers to identify me as someone I am not. From what I perceive, this EGM movement is about the creation of personalities, and damaging others, with lesser regard to truth on both sides. A small number here stand to benefit greatly, but I believe most who have been convinced this scheme has merit will ultimately lose. Which brings me back to my early posts describing any outcome for the humble shareholder, like myself, as lose/lose. As it would already seem. The share price is lower than at the calling for the EGM, which has unfortunately over-ridden a plethora of positive news in the interim.
We'll see what Wednesday brings, but I doubt I will regret selling. I will continue to follow and attempt to understand what has evolved as a new risk to public companies. The upside is that greater accountability (and fear) towards retailers should lead to better managerial and boardroom performance. However, in this case, I believe the alternative options, whilst perhaps well-intended by some of the protagonists, have been poorly thought out.
Good luck.
Expand
