Ceteris paribus, you are absolutely right. In the context of a...

Ceteris paribus, you are absolutely right. In the context of a listed company, i can think of few if any situations in which 3 people making decision is better than 5. However in this case, i don't think it actually makes much if any difference at all.

I guess the one thing that concerns me about this line of questioning is that it almost assumes that in some way we are looking to take advantage of these board seats to the detriment of other shareholders. I am not saying you are saying that, but some are. We bought the shares to align ourselves with shareholders, not to take advantage of them.

The project needs to attract a major party very quickly or within 12 months we will all be diluted, or its my view the share price will be a lot closer to zero than it is 20c, let alone 50c.

To us, it seems to make sense to get people on the board who have experience in doing exactly what the company needs done. To me, it seems crazy not to. Particularly if individuals capable of bringing the major parties to the table are not elected to the board because of concerns over a potential, as yet non existent, conflict of interest.

In my mind, it would seem one would need to have little to no confidence in Mr Sheard, Mr Hair and Mr Cai to make a decision of such importance based on fears they are not capable of making decent decisions on behalf of shareholders.