what will they need to get over the line, page-3

Hi Phantom,

Still on the sidelines. I feel that what has come out regarding the the shannigans with the convertible and now a credible critique of the Stanwell deal, vindicates that decision. Bad governance was what steered me away from Icon despite the huge resource, which we all know about, and which would normally have me pouring dollars into Icon.

I am confident now that the Baldwins and co. are competent and committed to good goverance and not get quick merchants. If you read their correspondences with RJ, they have been actively pursuing concerns we have raised on this board behind the scenes but to now avail. As such, if the Baldwins got some people on the board and a new CEO, I will be back on board full steam ahead.

The problem is that any rolling of the board will mean question marks about the Stanwell deal going through. This will create short-term price uncertainty. Baldwin's critique was quite convincing, so maybe it isn't in shareholders best interests to go through with it anyway (i.e. long-term). Given that the Baldwin's have been turning the screws for quite some time now, it is also reasonable to assumed RJ and co rushed the deal (it did suddenly appear out of blue after the convertible were voted down at the AGM).

Despite the uncertainties around the Stanwell deal, if the Baldwins do get up I will be buying. If I had any faith in the governance and competency of the board I would be willing to pay 50 cents for Icon today. I keep harping on about corporate governance, but one thing that this whole episode has re-inforced for me is actually how little the small fry like us know (e.g. the conflict over the convertibles, the details of the Stanwell deal etc). Corrporate oversight and full disclosure of information - which the Baldwins will bolster by adding another 2 independent directors - is really the only protection we have. Even still, we will always be behind the eight ball.