There's a danger here that the Chinese don't do alot in a short(ish) period of time and bore the share price back into submission. So far it looks as if their plan was just to get a couple of chums on seats. Yes, it's only been a few days, but lets hope that doesn't turn into weeks and months. Wonder if Rory has locked himself into the staff toilet and is refusing to come out.
The one thing RSR tried to do was to push through his share options. I for one am delighted the change of tack. I always said he was too young and inexperienced for an Aim company - people working their lives in large corporate companies invariable translate to efficient inefficient managers / directors of small caps. My opinions only of course.
What makes you think we had more chance under Rory. He had done feck all to increase production and was going to dilute the b*llocks off the company. You're lauding Rory for things that he hadn't done! Which was kind of the whole problem.
He is on the Board as NED apparently. Why is there a gap of 6 years after 1999 on his cv. Where was he based? Who did he work for? Every year can be accounted for except those 6 years.
I hope he is a good'un. That great plans are in place. But I do not appear to be the only one who is very sceptical, and will remain so until we have far more clarification about who is in charge and where they are charging too.
We were clear a few months ago. Rory was in charge and we were focussing on Trinidad on-shore. I was happy with that - many thought I was a pl*nker and employed by Buchs, joined at hip to someone who lived about 15 valleys west of me. I am far from happy with this vacuum that is Range iii - yet others are happy and licking their lips at prospect of getting their 10p a share back next year. Bit of a puzzle to me, as I would think they had vastly more chance of steady growth under Range ii. We shall see, when Mr Chen comes down from his ivory tower and deigns to say anything.
When this sort of coup occurs, it tends to be looked at with great interest by the authorities, fellow shareholders and staff. So I am not so sure it is a done deal yet. An EGM can and should be called asap.
On the RIG poll, it was approx 60% of RIG members who wanted to keep RSR, GL and CB on BOD. And also keep latest two Aussies whilst we're on ASX and require 2 Australian nationals. M E-J was not popular at all, and was the only one voted off without Abrahams block being thrown in the mix.
My guess would be that 50% plus of shareholders who were not signed up to RIG would have been slightly more pro RSR/GL/CB than RIG members, and many RIG and non-RIG may feel aggrieved they had cards to play, questions to ask, presentations to think about. And then a couple of people disrupt events in Perth and, for whatever reason, Reikle did not have Security and police in to arrest them.
I don't know what is this hue and cry about voting when actually most of us are not mourning demise of BoDs. In any case we were destined to doomed with current set of people, so any change is most welcome. At least now we have 50/50 chance even if we are at mercy of Abraham.
RIG are a collection of individual shareholders who each hold shares and each one of them can vote for or against resolutions as they so wish (or indeed not vote at all). They are not an entity and have no collective vote.
However Abrahams hold some 700 million shares and are an entity and can indeed vote the entire lot as they so wish. On the day approx 700 million votes was enough for them to have their way. The shareholders were given an opportunity to express their wishes and most of them chose not to by not voting. Those that did vote succeeded in removing most of the BOD by a majority. That's the way it works, that's the way it always has worked. I can't see how it can work in any other way. It is exactly the same principle as voting for an MP in your constituency. If there is a low turnout and someone you don't want gets in do you have the right to call for a return to the poll so that more people can vote?
As a result of the terms of the finance provided Abrahams had the right to appoint two directors, this was not a secret and we all knew that was the case. So no surprise then that they exercise the right and we now appear to be in the hands of Dave Chen and Kiki Wang. Like all of us I haven't got a clue what Abrahams have in mind, the only hope is that it involves increasing the value of our investment, rather than halving it as RSR had done. But the process has been legal and there is nothing we can do about it.
What would your stance have been in WW2, Rich? King George (sic) is mooching around doing nothing, occasional visit down the East End to see damage to rigs. Let's have someone else to run GM Ltd in 1942. Who? What about King George's elder brother, Prince David - he and his American wife can reason with people, they are go-getters and focussed and can make GB great again.
For me, it is a gimme that - if you hold shares - you support BOD or management. At least on public boards. Criticise Range or other shareholders constructively - yes. Be hostile, rude, racist, uncaring and abusive - no. And, if you are not a shareholder, you can of course comment and be critical - but lack of skin needs to be openly declared.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.