RE: RE: Not happy unless we're unhappy . . . @Aves,
I won't deny that the dilution was more than I hoped it would be at this stage, but that's what it costs to right the ship after near bankruptcy.
We needed the financing to pay the crippling debt and to escape the black hole called OPEL Solar.
So that much was unavoidable - I'm sure everyone agrees that was money well spent.
It could be argued that the options for the new board was excessive, but if you want options to work the way they are supposed to you have to award them BEFORE the work starts. Then, directors work to earn a premium on those options, which is aligned with our need to have the SP appreciate. Personally I want our directors to have some skin in the game to keep them hungry.
If you wanted to reward directors afterward, then it's bonuses you want. But I really don't think we want that model. It would be too easy for the directors to jump ship when things go wrong and a bonus would almost certainly not be proportional to their effort in improving SP the way options are.
Remember, these guys aren't going to work for free and the options are currently worth peanuts compared to what Benadiba would have been making working for Cott.
Again, I was harsh last night, but I just don't see the point in complaining about what was done out of necessity. And personally, I make an effort to separate what can be helped from what can't and I try to deal with only the things I can influence. And the way I see it we can't speed things up and we can't undo the dilution that has already occurred. As hard as it is to accept, all we can do is hope that the directors feel well compensated enough to bust their cans getting us the best buyout possible.