Just once somewhere here give me some answer to this question other than 'Well he should have done something!' Now, I came into this company post the BMG agreement. What Nick was told and what promises were made by BMG in order to gain the agreement of CAP at the time I don't know. Personally I do wonder who said what to whom for the agreement to be set in place. What I do know I know is that the market thought it was a great agreement as the price virtually doubled in a week. So i presume those of you who now comment here thought it was a good deal at the time.
So the question is What could Nick Sheard have done about a company over which he has no control, who have watertight binding agreements, and the internal machinations of that company were before the court? Now I want something really concrete in any reply to this question which. again, doesn't include anything saying the equivalent of 'well he should have said or done something'
This is not churlishness on my part. It comes down to management of the company. Setting aside the original decision to become involved with BMG, if you think Nick has been doing absolutely nothing while all the schmozzle has been going on you should not own the shares and i question what you are doing still commenting on this forum. If you think Nick has been a good, though not perfect, manager of this company with sahreholder's interests at heart then just sit and wait for the mess to get sorted one way or the other. If CAP is sitting on a great asset in Hawson's, the problems will eventually be resolved, the Court case cannot go on forever although the legal profession is rather good at making such things happen, and any alternative plans Nick has for bringing the project forward will be put in place.
CAP Price at posting:
29.7¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
