Voting "No" to Options, page-97

OOO, I do agree with your comments.

It is my belief (and I think most posters also) that the large majority of shareholders have nothing but praise for the work our directors and CEO are doing (me included). We should not though let current work and good results get mixed up with the need to continue to ask everyone... managers / directors / employees...(as in any any organization), to remain properly "accountable" and "challenged". Incentives and bonuses are a well established format to keep people engaged. This issue we are debating is about setting what seems to be low ball targets - such targets can have many downsides (many which have been discussed over the last couple of days).

The trick in a case like this is to find the balance between normal expectation and "reward" for outstanding personal performance; between what is a fair level of remuneration and what someone else will offer. The reality is if an individual is a very high performer they will be chased...if sort by a company with very deep pockets so be it, the last thing you want to do is chase them up to a level that then destroys your company. Exceptional performers need to move on (in time) - only they know when that time will be.
It is amazing though when you recognize how many people want to achieve their personal goals, rather than just pursuing the biggest amount of money (there are many footballers who can be shown as examples). But it is also crucial to remember there will always be someone else to step into somebody's shoes...the challenge to the recruiters is to find a person.

FAR management have so far been very approachable to its shareholder base...I hope they move on addressing this before the AGM, and having seen the concerns laid out by our HC shareholder family, put forward over coming days, a detailed case /explaining the "Plan" as it is, or adjust it to reflect the concerns.

As it stands I have no hesitation in voting NO

dodds