"I think that as soon as the little fear campaign dies down, and...

"I think that as soon as the little fear campaign dies down, and a little bit of sanity prevails, it will be quite plain that we are here to help not to hinder. We are not here to control or to turn the company upside down. We simply want to bring our expertise to the table in a positive fashion so the share price can start going in the right direction."

Hello Ed, firstly thank you for joining the discussion here on HC, your input is greatly appreciated. Just a couple of questions for you.

"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."

1. Why not, instead of insisting that Nick's two mates be removed as directors (as Nick is obviously strongly against this), accept Nick's compromise of keeping his mates and adding the two ASI directors for the moment, and see how you go working together with the current board? I believe Nick would value ASI's expertise and input, he seems a reasonable man to me, and I would think that if the two ASI directors had a strongly differing opinion to the rest of the board Nick would listen and weigh up their opinion rather than simply dismiss it.

If I'm wrong there, and you believe Nick would ignore the two ASI directors opinions, still, rather than insist Nick's two mates be removed, wouldn't one step at a time be in ASI's best interests for the time being?

So, get the two ASI directors on the board, see how things pan out with you all working together, and if no good then act accordingly and suggest to shareholders that the two directors (Nick's mates) not be re-elected? Mining this ore is still a few years away, and this move by ASI seems an impatient one from Chinese interests.

2. The current board, at least to my knowledge, is the only board on the entire ASX who worked through the GFC without pay for many months so they could continue proving up their main prospect (Hawsons). Many other company's boards simply reduced their OPEX (layed workers off, suspended projects etc. etc.) and continued to put their hands out for more bonuses and increased remuneration.

To little old me, Average Joe, Mum & Dad Shareholder, this speaks VOLUMES about the integrity of the current board and their willingness to be disadvantaged personally for the greater good of CAP (and all shareholders) in the long run. This, apart from the Hawsons project itself, is the main reason I invested in CAP and have continued to hold through the ups and downs of the share price.

Nick must have asked the current board (his mates as you say), to sacrifice their income for the good of the company. And as far as I know they agreed to do so.

Does ASI have the same integrity? Would ASI directors be willing to sacrifice their wages if need be, just as Nick and the current board did during the GFC?

You say that ASI feels that CAP needs a more balanced board, with more shareholder representation to protect shareholder interests. But hasn't the current board proven that their interests and shareholder interests are aligned?