As a general rule in this LYC forum I've stayed away from the...

As a general rule in this LYC forum I've stayed away from the 'Corporate governance' argument side of things that many have a bee in their bonnet about.

My main personal opinion is that I just wanted a single focus. Get the license and get the LAMP going. No distractions, no tangents.

I still feel this way.

However I can see the need and requirement for separate CEO and Chairman roles soon and my reasoning has been touched on by Nightstalker, ie there needs to be focus on both the immediate and the strategic actions. I still feel that there needs to be a much greater focus on the immediate actions at present. This will change as the LAMP moves through commissioning and becomes a producer in the ramp up to nameplate capacity.

The one thing that raises my curiosity with this proposal is why hasn't this already been organised. There's been a year since the last AGM. Surely it isn't hard to get 100 shareholders in a year? Did the AGM date suddenly sneak up unexpectedly again?

Like I said - I can see the future need, but every time I see this tabled I can't help thinking that it's all a bit disorganised. I'd be happy to support such a resolution when the LAMP is producing and may even have supported it if there had been sufficient lead time to allow me to do so, not 3 days. I have no doubt that the proposal has popped up here before but I'm not here every day and important stuff is very easily buried in all the white noise dribble that is so prevalent.

For the record I have sent off my request to the LSA for the copies and will give them due consideration.