Hi All,I agree with you jmcgoo and Snowy, it’s interesting that...

Hi All,

I agree with you jmcgoo and Snowy, it’s interesting that Rocket Fuel has come out of hiding now, like Oily Man, they failed to respond to past questions asked as known option holders - one of the main reasons for the 249D.

After speaking to a very learned business man, he said that I was naive to believe that this Board may not have not realised the impact of the options, he said that if they were or are still looking at a high division of shares for a mining play, then the option holders interests are safe and they lose much less in terms of dilution than everyone else when exercised at the ridiculous rate of .001. I tend to agree with him albeit it’s important to remember that it is only an opinion, but one worthy of consideration I feel.

We need to put this in perspective, if 2 of the major shareholders had abstained from voting – we would have a new board now. Therefore, the results are certainly not indicative of the general consensus of shareholders. Unfortunately there is a high volume of shares held by a handful of people and interestingly, 2 of the larger shareholders who are not beneficiaries of the options but according to the results apparently voted for this Board. Go figure.

Anyway, we should not be sucking sour grapes – Now that this board has effectively turned MOT into a shell, perhaps we should see what projects they have, perhaps they have been waiting to put it forward post the EGM? I would vote for anything that is good for the company and ALL shareholders without a massive division or dilution, not just what’s good for Oily Man, Rocket Fuel and their group. Realistically, it’s likely that my votes will count for zilch now. Obviously, my vote was not the deciding factor with the Cypress deal either – this would be the result of the 2 other Major shareholders who voted this Board back in on Tuesday, we probably should be thanking them for the removal of the Cypress deal at the very least.

In terms of the litigation (at our expense) attempts were made with our solicitor to try to find resolution. I think it's best to just let the courts decide at the end of July. (This is public knowledge and registered in County court, so I suspect I won’t be moderated – However if I am, anyone can call me on 0404 001 277 and I’ll send you the details.)

By the way, as a Director you need to take control and know the company’s position completely, you take on the liability of the past Directors (if any) when you accept the role. It’s also over 12 months now, nearly 18 months actually and I believe outside the statute of limitations (could be wrong here, best to DYOR) if they wanted to blame the past Board, they should have dealt with me when requests were made over 12 months ago. While they say they have new legal advisors, the current Solicitor is still registered in the courts as their legal representative. This is a fact - It is what it is.

IMO DYOR