re: Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Pro... Split, you've...

re: Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Pro... Split, you've stated that you're a fence sitter but you really can't claim that position as you're going to vote "NO" to these resolutions.

Your example in comparing Trafford Resources and BHP Billiton is a little unfair as, the specific time between the granting of these options and the date when they are due to be exercised wraps very neatly around the time when this "one trick pony" is on the brink of production and when Stage 1 steady state production is reached. BHP Billiton could open another five mines and it wouldn't have the ability to increase the share price in multiples unlike the unique circumstances surrounding this company.

I'm pleased that you don't oppose me expressing my views but, rather than suggesting that I'm trying to stir the pot and create angst, you should be encouraged that a fellow poster has made the effort to highlight the issues. You never know, this very discussion could alert other posters who weren't really mindful of the past or present circumstances to either reconsider how they would vote on these resolutions or even go to the trouble of voting when they otherwise wouldn't bother. Certainly a strong "No" vote to these resolutions puts the directors on notice that its shareholders are not just a pack of sheep that will agree to any proposal that they put up.

With regard to your challenge to telegraph my intentions, I have my reasons for not doing so at this stage but don't read anything sinister into that. Rather than throwing challenges at me, why don't you throw challenges out to all other company shareholders who may read these posts to become more pro-active in the affairs of their company?

Why don't the resolutions that involve the Non-Executive directors seek to increase their directors' fees rather than granting them parcels containing 500,000 risk free options? Really, what do they do that they dont get well paid for anyway? More importantly, if all of the resolutions are fair and reasonable, why didn't the company commission an independent report as a form of validation rather than relying on the Black and Scholes Options Pricing Model that values the 1,000,000 options proposed to be granted to Ian Finch at only $93,875? Here's a thought, why not grant him $100,000 as a cash incentive instead on the basis that he purchases 200,000 shares on market with the money and another 200,000 shares with his own money? What could be fairer than that? A good balance of risk and reward. As far as the other directors go, well, get a full-time job with the company and earn your money like the rest of us.

Stagman