AGM 2018, page-130

Great comment. Your reasoning makes sense to me. I've said before that the best result for me would be 49% support for the browns. The strongest support for change possible without upsetting the vanadium kart. 

However, I see the emerging action by the Browns in a different light. I agree we are at a stage in the project where big international players are getting involved and relationships are everything. The first relationship to break down, though, was that between the BOD and the number one shareholder. According to the board, the Browns were asking too much and so they had to reduce the level of direct communication. Now for a shareholder who was had multiple million dollars invested in TNG for some 7 years, going nowhere, this is of course going to be an issue. Were they asking too much? I don't know. Probably. But it's the job of the MD to keep all people engaged in the story. Sometimes you over deliver, and sometimes you break promises but you calculate it so that the interests of shareholders can be best progressed. If the browns trusted PB and RT, they might have accepted a period of less communication - they didn't. The board could have tried to do more to communicate, and meet the requests of the largest shareholder. At some pointy point in this story, TNG undertook the largest raising (by 3 fold) that I've seen in my time here, at a discount, to an unknown entity with non explanation except pointing to a vague strategic relevance (through the potential off-take of Iron Ore for which we already supposedly have an offtake...). No mistake - this is either explainable strategically significant for TNG or a hostile move against a shareholder. I haven't seen an explanation yet.

So what comes next. The BOD pull back comms to the largest owner, then dilute them inexplicably. The browns could sell, hold and accept their fate, or do something. They are forcing a chairman in, and allowing the board to choose them! That's about the friendliest response I can think of. But its where the story goes from here that really rallies the supporters of the Browns. Rather than explain the raising (still to the date of posting), rex dug his heels in and the board took responsibility for the raise off Rex - saying they all approved it. It's pure defensiveness. The BOD are talking about individuals and the shareholders are talking about Mt Peake. 

So in short - the action is not the best thing for Mt Peak when looked at in isolation, but addresses a bigger issue - the breakdown of communication between owners and management, and the BOD's loss of support of a major shareholder. So to answer your question - what are the Browns' credentials - apart from having great success as early investors in FMG, they own 10% of the company. They are literally the entity who has the most capital on the line for TNG to operate. That entitles them to visibility of and a say in how the company is run and I take the s249D and their eloquent communications as glaring proof that they are not getting it. If owners and management are out of step then a finance deal is a pipe dream. Painful as it is, this has to be addressed first - and the BOD (perhaps telling of how close they feel they are to financing the project) have decided to stand their ground and have it played out through a shareholder resolution. 

This needs resolution. 3 options:

1. The BOD and shareholders need to agree on how it is run and communicated

2. Get rid of the BOD

3. Get rid of the shareholders

From what I see, they tried 1, and couldn't make it work. Now the board are trying 3, which I think is disgusting behavior if it's true, and it's hard to believe otherwise when the board aren't offering any other realistic reason. PB could spend 1 hour to call BRR and tell them "we raised $10M from Vimson because we need a commercially sensitive amount for a commercially sensitive deal that we can't talk about". I'd be happy. But they haven't. Why? Because it's not true. 

Option 2 it is. Let's not replace the board, get rid of Rex quietly - oh he declined. Ok, replace the chairman and let the MD pick someone independent. 

Sorry for the tome - I'm not meaning to be argumentative, but your fair and rational reasons for supporting the board clarified my own reasoning for supporting the Browns and I thought I'd share.