Snackman - You write
"However, the loudest no votes are coming from the 'others' that participate on another board. Check it out."
Wouldn't that be logical?
Those on the other board have simply grown tired (over time) of:
1. A lagging share price
2. Continued dilution
3. Bonus and rewards to Wave management and employees that don't even work there yet, without tangible performance (i.e. significant revenues, share price). Even though this subject can be brought up anually for vote at the SHM.
4. Arguing with you, and others who refuse to entertain an alternate point of view ~ even though many on the other board own 10s of thousands of shares, and have the right to an opinion, just like you do.
Of course, the obvious response from this board has always been, "Well then if you're not happy why don't you just sell?"
To which, the obvious reply this time is, "well if you want to be rewarded, and have options that far out into the future, why don't you prove to us shareholders [for a change] that voting yes is justifiable?" Obviously, if the shareholders didn't have the right to ask these questions, and/or force some justification then we wouldn't have the voting rights in the first place.
Our vote tells the company how we feel about their performance. If you feel as though management needs this initiative then you should vote your beliefs and be done with it. Let's not make this a "this-board" vs. "that board" issue, because both boards have Wave longs on them. That's an elitist posture that should not interfere on this issue.
Wave has underperformed long enough. Not by what I say, but by what they too have said in the past. They have not done anything to deserve this in many shareholders eyes, and the timing is completely inappropriate, and the far-reaching nature of this proposal is also unnecessary.
It's a valid issue that should be debated and voted on by the individual. Said differently, "You should refrain from trying to make this anything else". FOR ONCE
AI
