Doesn't the Chairman of the Board's job include finding new...

Doesn't the Chairman of the Board's job include finding new assets? Yes? So why did the Chairman's private company try to act as an intermediary and gain millions of shares plus a hundred grand or so just to do the job he is already paid to do as Chairman? Shouldn't he have just said "As Chairman of the Board I have found some tenements on offer direct from a listed company" and allowed all the shareholders to benefit, rather than receiving millions and millions of shares and cash for doing the job he is already paid to do?

The current Board must know their days are numbered and I am sure they would prefer to leave knowing that the mistakes they have made are at least not replicated by again allowing the Daws family to again seize control of the share register and the company bank account. I am sure that they would step aside for the right asset, but maybe their morals won't allow them to go down knowing that to leave now would be another mistake in what they now know is a long list of mistakes.

Ask yourself, why are the long-term friends they put on the Board(!!) finally turning against them? Hell, call the Board, don't rely on my or Pints or Waterslides opinions!

I'm not saying you should support the Board, I am just saying you should consider that the problem will not go away if you vote them out now. Consider that maybe they now recognise that they were in the wrong by supporting the regime and give them one last chance to remove the real reason your share price is 1.2c and then support them with any valid new venture that is a non-Daws related entity, one that is looking to build a project for your company and not theirs. I'll bet that knowing a suitable asset is being vended in the current Board (except for Daws of course)  would step aside and finally you will have got a good asset, a good team and no more Daws deals that make this company a corporate pariah.

Anyway, rant over, my NTM thread comments over, I will hand it back to the Daws family and their associates to explain again how it was Doug's old mates that he employed that ruined the company and not the overpowering control of the Chairman.

Pints, Waterslide - let your personal insults and fear-mongering posts fly! I don't have any shares so I have no way of losing here but I reckon you'll both lose either way, either by losing your 249d appeal or by winning and then running this one down into to the point-somethings of a share. Or, y'know, all those pesky laws...