I don't think it was a misquote but more an observation in...

I don't think it was a misquote but more an observation in regards Resolution 5, 6 & 7 as they are the same formula and principle. The difference lies in the value derived from the formula and principle and as you rightly say Resolution 5 assigns an order of magnitude increase that seems unwarranted and outside any formula or principle. I agree all Directors receive the same directors fees and some receive additional payments for (a) Board committee duties, (b) performance of executives duties, and (c) perform chairman duties amongst other things. Paul is asking for that amount based on (a) non-payment of executive remuneration as an employee, and (b) chairman duties as a Director of the company and all in arrears.

Having said that I agree it isn't a resolution I would support either but for a different reason and that is that the value is arbitrary and appears to have been struck after the fact rather than assigning a value 12 months before for the executive remuneration component and also the Remuneration Report should have reflected what the shareholders agreed to as a remuneration pool for Directors to draw their fees from at the last AGM. It was approved as Resolution 1 at the last AGM. Also I noticed that Resolution 7 of the previous AGM would raise eyebrows for many as it also shows Paul taking a large serving of shares for "work done"...

So if I add the two large scoops of shares & options issued to Paul for "work done" and the results shareholders has received in return then I would suggest their is some serious governance and compliance issues with this company that need to be redressed smartly and no further granting of shares or options be given.

But that's my view...glad I am not exposed to AYB as I have enough on my plate with AHF.