Who is going to the AGM?, page-98

Well said @malay
Just for the record, I was also part of the shareholder group that removed BOD Mk1, McKay came highly recommended and at the time was a good choice, as for ML, I am not and never will be a fan of his, and his exit from BGS at the time had something to do with a "conflict of personalities" rather than a "conflict of interest."
@athena the BOD Mk 2 deserved to be ousted for their contempt of the shareholders that supported them, listened to their "good vibes" BGS is travelling well, and the rhetorical rubbish that exuded from them as they systematically plundered and pillaged BGS's cash reserves to fill their pockets.
There was no directors "buying" on market to show their faith and support of the company, I will be happy when the options that were granted to them expire, these option were granted to encourage the directors to have a greater involvement in the achievement of the company's objectives and to provide an incentive to strive to that end by participating in in the future growth and prosperity of the company through share ownership, "yeah right" that worked well!!!!!

You want minutes of meetings when the previous BOD left with their tails between their legs? I would like you to give examples of "It will be a very long time before the current board recovers ground lost in ditching BoD2, which was doing a very professional job, despite claims, and ditched purely because shareholders were upset about the share price."
If the BOD Mk 2 were so professional, why didn't they say "no we are not going?" There is a process of removing a BOD, the group of "said" share holders could of taken that route, from my understanding they approached the BOD to which they then threw their toys out of the cot and left the building, yep, that is "professionalism" at its finest. I suggest that they did that solely of avoiding the embarrassment of it being served a 249D and it being taken to a share holder meeting.
It is ludicrous to suggest that the BOD Mk 2 were outed on the whim of share holders because of "Immaturity and a lack of patience were the names in that game played by a few shareholders." At what point would you have given some thought to the then BOD of not achieving any objects and when do you think a "red flag" would have been raised by yourself that the squandering of the Company's cash reserves was a problem?
Also, really!!!! A lack of patience, maybe you should run a poll to actually get a grip and realise how patient BGS's share holders have been!!
"Doing a professional job," just shakes my head!!!

cheers