Actually it's none of your business and a red herring. Do you...

Actually it's none of your business and a red herring.

Do you really think that one shareholder buying or selling will alter the course of a company's success or failure? If so that company would be on very shaky ground.

However, what I will tell you is that on my numbers, the group previously held approximately 15% and now it is a few percent less. That percentage drop has predominantly occurred because of actions by the company which have diluted our holdings; Altus issues, bonus shares to directors, increasing numbers of directors on the gravy train, Peter Su coming on board at a savage discount (which coincidentally got the directors even more shares). Some of the group have bought, some have sold.

If you think I'm responsible for the share price drop from 29.5c you must be drinking Fishiespal's Koolaid.

Personally, I made the decision last year to diversify my holdings into companies where management communicated to their shareholders and have the experience necessary to take projects through to fruition. However, I still have multiple holdings of Canyon myself (though lesser volume) and perhaps more importantly have many friends who hold Canyon shares. Despite Fishiespal's delusions about my motives, I do not want those friends suffering a financial loss. The difficult question in situations like this is what is the best course of action. I've made it very clear how my votes have (already) been cast.

I think it would be irresponsible for us not to pull this board up and get them to look at the important issues I have highlighted.

Leaving aside the issue of the board's capability and success or lack there of...the share price... any company needs buyers in excess of sellers for the share price to rise. Where are the buyers? What's that saying? 'Don't shoot the messenger'

PS The board recently valued the companies shares at 10c. On that metric it's up 15%