Over the years SGL and shareholders have been the butt of some...

Over the years SGL and shareholders have been the butt of some pretty vitriolic writing by journalists. I sense the article by Robin Bromley in today's Australian is written in the same vein.

However, if I was Bromley's editor I'd have more than a few questions for him like "Did you actually go to the meeting?" and "Did you ask anybody any questions/hear what was going on?"

Quote "But most of them gave in at the end and all the resolutions went through with healthy margins."
No they didn't!

Two resolutions were defeated. Ray Schoer, the Chairman and Stephen Quik were not elected/re-elected to the Board. (Robin this was announced at the meeting and confirmed by ASX announcement last evening!)

Quote "But it helped that chairman Ray Schoer had plentiful proxies in his pocket." No he didn't - see above.

Robin, you should have wondered why Resolution 3 (which took the power from shareholders and gave it to the Board to limit the number of directors to seven) was even on the agenda.
Was there a "power play" for control of the Board??? Yes! By whom? (Robin, you find out - makes a much more interesting yarn than the story you wrote.) I'll give you a hint - Were they successful? No!
Having set the number of directors at 7 by passing resolution 3, and then with eight standing for six vacant seats two were never going to make it over the line. Turned out to be existing directors, Chairman Schoer and Quik.

So why were two new independent directors appointed over the incumbents? (Robin, I sense I'm doing too much of your job for you. As someone said, there was an elephant running around in the room and you didn't notice.)

As a shareholder of many years I am am very happy with an independent Board that is committed to restoring the shareholder wealth we have always known exists in SGL's assets.

Go you good thing.