Ann: Hanking Australia - Change in substantial holding, page-64

I just bloody wish he woulda answered a call, email or issued a company update. I thoroughly enjoyed the conversations I had with him and the insights he offered. At the end of the day, his silence to the broader PGO shareholders has been deafening, @golddiggers. And when you consider he also sits on the "Independent Board of Directors" and gives his vocal support (as quoted on the record as a company release) to this offer and terms like the no-shop clause, it certainly raises questions.

We all get it wrong from time to time, potentially setting out with a plan that is either too ambitious or gets railroaded along the way. But we gotta own that, particularly when you are the managing director of a public company that ends up in this sort of predicament.

I believe shareholders had/have a right to hear from the person running the show. Until this offer, Hanking did not have a controlling interest. It was with the support of our Independent Board and their votes that set Hanking on the way.

And @FVR13, this is not about the person. This is about his role as the highly-paid managing director of a public company, his communication, his performance and ability to deliver on milestones and deadlines. Garry was appointed to take us mining. He did not. Fact.

He is the only one who can set the record straight. To date he has chosen not to. So shareholders can only judge by his actions, which as highlighted above, are to support this lousy offer. It woulda been terrific to have the opportunity for other parties to get a look at the company in detail and potentially make an alternative offer. Correct me if I am wrong, but were management forced to support this offer and the terms? Were they really that cornered? Or do they genuinely see this as being the best offer for the assets the company has at the current project/s status? (Genuine questions.)