I think the answer lies in the incumbent Board adopting an...

I think the answer lies in the incumbent Board adopting an approach to successfully vilify their own largest shareholder, with the sole agenda of preserving their own roles. The irony is that this same shareholder pays more of their salary than anyone else and has more to gain (and lose) by the success of the company than anyone else... they must be bad guys... must be up to something... must be trying to screw over other shareholders... how could they not be happy with what this Board has achieved? Is it not sufficiently logical that the largest shareholder is unhappy with the very negative performance of the Company and simply considers a change is required? Usually, the largest shareholder of a company has a very informed view of the state of play. Frankly, I'm baffled by all this.

I never understand how Directors with no material shareholding can lie straight in bed attacking their own shareholders. The lure of a salary and influence can cause people to do unbecoming things.