Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.

Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Limited V.MSQ



TSXV:MSQ - Post by User

Post by halcrowon Aug 09, 2012 12:00pm
219 Views
Post# 20198699

The old board's new actions

The old board's new actions

Should the new board be set aside (and the three Mosquiteers have already resigned) and the old board be back, then it can be presumed that ex-Chairman Fu will be Chairman Fu again.

 

The reconstituted board will consist of Ash, Matt Ball, Bronson, Jefferies, McClay, SDykes and Fu.

Ash seems to have been involved only with MSQ over the last decade; Matt Ball is with Bralorne and is seemingly very well respected in mining circles; Bronson's recent activity  is about the same as Ash's; Jefferies is MSQ (but the financials indicate that he's owed a chunk of money, even though the two McClays have seemingly been paid out and the Kid has flogged a lot of paper into the market); and McClay is McClay.

 

Support for a vote to remove McClay? Ash could go either way, but presumably on the side of integrity; Ball should be for integrity; Bronson..no idea; Jefferies might vote to ptotect his shares and receivable from further risk; McClay is a definate no, and SDykes and Fu have already demonstrated their integrity.

 

IMO:

Ash..likely a yes

Ball, a yes

Bronson..no

Jefferies..likely a yes

McClay..no

SDykes and Fu..two yeses

 

That puts it at two noes and five yeses. The trouble with nepotism is that those who don't get the cash and who engage in lucrative unreported share transactions have to watch their backs if there's an opportunity to hold a new vote with new knowledge.

Based on my opinion and probabilities, I think that it's bye bye McClay.

 

Better get those overtime bills in, Chimpers.

 

Bullboard Posts