Ok that's pretty similar give or take a few details than what I...

Ok that's pretty similar give or take a few details than what I heard.  Let's face it - if the Board had a good reason for scaling Jack they'd have used it.  everyone else does. The Chair's handling of it was what created all the instability. Is it about results? Did he jump ship? They'd have stopped this if they could have said anything at all.  I spoke to one of the 249 signatories who said he'd seen correspondence the Jack had since been asked to come back and consult!? If any shareholder can get a single statement from the board to give reasoning why he was sacked that'd be helpful.  But they know they can't give it. They've said it wasn't to do with results.  They've said it wasn't criminal.  On those facts alone I'd agree with Linemarker that the reason the Chair wanted to get rid of him much have been MASSIVE if he didn't care that it would do this to the company.