update, page-137

Great post Q, Yokka and Est

Sutto unfortunately I don't share your sentiments in regards to SBR having the major share holder driving the company. As you mentioned there is indeed a corporate governance (CG) issue which shareholders should be aware of. It is recommended that SH's take the time to read the CG which can be found in the Annual Report.

One of the many problems perceived in the CG is that the 'corporate manager' (CM) referred to in the CG is KMM or Kalgoorlie Mine Management, which in my understanding is owned entirely by our major shareholder. It would appear that within the CG the BOD actually defers almost all of the responsibility for running SBR to the CM through a management contract and pays administrative fees to the major SH through his company, KMM. IMO this creates an environment for potential self interest and conflicts of interest whilst effectively creating an impotent BOD.

Consequently we have a situation were the major SH has unfettered control of the operations of the company imo.

As a SH we must ask the questions;

*Where is the disclosure of the management contract and the details there of?
*Why does the BOD allow this if it is truly independent of the major SH?
* Who nominated and voted in the directors? Was it our major SH?
*Why do we have a CM with what I percieve has potential for conflict of interest in being the major SH and paid administrator of the operations of the company?
*Why don't we have an independent and visible CEO that reports to the BOD befitting of a public company instead of a CM that operates in the shadows with potential for self interest and conflicts of interest?
* Why do we have what appears to be a corporate governance that is structured to hand considerable control to a corporate manager/major SH and consequently limit independence and control of the BOD?

The answer to some of the questions imo is why we are sitting at 2.5c. This companies structure and CG imo does not create an environment that attracts investment from funds or support from a broker as there certainly appears to be too much power in one holders hands.

IMO if the BOD are acting for all SH's then they should not stand idle in the face of abysmal management of the company and potential conflicts of interest in the CG. The BOD imo should tear up the current management contract or at least not renew it, have the CG re written, hold a general meeting and stand for re election with other proposed candidates with mine development experience and appoint an experienced and independent CEO to manage the company in the place of the corporate manager. Note that the major SH imo must abstain from voting on the renewal of the management contract due to conflict of interest.

IMO if Sabre can not restructure itself in a way that is befitting of a public company, with a strong and independent BOD which is acting in the best interest of all SH's then we will not attract the investment dollars or broker support that is required to see Sabre respected in the market, realise value for holders and drive the company to production.

Yes we have a great project in Guchab and highly prospective tenements with infrastructure but without restructuring true value for all SH's imo won't be fully realised.

I implore that all SH's both large and small inform themselves by reading the CG and be prepared to vote if necessary to restructure Sabre resources.

Regards

Retrac