"Don't be swayed by voracious claims, unsupported!"What...

"Don't be swayed by voracious claims, unsupported!"

What voracious unsupported claims?

Mate, how you or any (sane and competent) shareholder can even consider voting yes to this proposal with the events that have unfolded whilst we are in suspension, shareholder dilution and the non answers and scant information presented by the board at the AGM tells me you need to very carefully digest what is being proposed before voting so you fully understand what is at stake here. At the very least the lack of information can only mean a no vote.

I will tell you only one part of this deal that is voracious and that is Mr Palermo's fee. If you really think it's a brilliant idea to vote yes and give this "person" $1.5 AUD no matter what the outcome of the deal it is clear to me you have not fully explored this single issue, let alone the whole picture so you cannot engage in rational debate about the subject.

On the issue of Mr Palermo alone, I'll call it out right now and say that everyone who votes yes hasn't thought it through or hasn't the capacity to do so.

A far more suitable recompense for Mr Palermo for introducing OBJ to a local Perth bodybuilder (sorry elite athlete) would (to me at least) be a performance based share scheme. Let me simplify what that means. If the deal with Mr Pavlovitch does not benefit the shareholders by a sustained increase in the share price then Mr Palermo gets zero. Which still puts Mr Palermo in a far better position than a shareholder because he won't have lost money.
Conversely, a long term uptick in the share price will allow Mr Palermo to profit handsomely (and moreso than the average shareholder) as will the common garden variety shareholder. I encourage all shareholders to give long and considered thought to this issue alone. There can only be one answer here.

An EGM convened by only a handful of shareholders on this forum (some here have very substantial holdings) and a board member subsequently shown the door will remind our board that no one is indispensable.This course of action is legal and open to us as shareholders and under the circumstances I believe should be exercised.