Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GlobalMarine who wrote (5665)	11/17/1997 5:24:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Rand I think he is more woried that he has spent the past year touting IPM to everyone that would listen. He repeatedly has said that it is by far the best DD choice. I think he saw his career flash before his eyes on Friday. Much like the poker player who bets his last chip(no pun intended)and is dismayed that drawing to an inside straight didn't work, Jay is trying to bluff to save the day. His posture is one of pure desparation. IMO. Mark close 6.875 hi 7.5 lo 6.5 vol 57,000

To: GlobalMarine who wrote (5665)	11/17/1997 5:38:00 PM
From: sh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Rand W.: I actually have a problem with that. It's been a while since I reviewed the highlights of the agreement, but I personally would not want Mr. John to have full control of those shares. If there is disagreement about significant issues, Mr. John will have a very firm grip on power and those who disagree will not be able to do anything about it. As it stands, I believe Mr. John already has enough shares to control the company. However, I do not believe that the control is so tight that if a major shareholder dispute arises Mr. John cannot be effectively challenged. With the 10 million proxy shares, that will be a whole different story. I'm just giving you my opinion based on a concern about the company's future. While Mr. John has done a relatively fine job to date in bringing Naxos to where it is, at some point we're going to need major mining industry expertise at the top and I'm just hoping there will not be resistance from the powers that be. The additional power that the proxies would provide would make the task of resisting management's intransigence that much more difficult. Of course, I say this without knowing the full terms of the proxy given under the Johnson-Lett option - things may not be so bad. Furthermore, there may never come a time when management's decision-making will become that great of an issue; yet, I do not like giving such enormous power to one person. Regards, sh

To: GlobalMarine who wrote (5665)	11/17/1997 6:35:00 PM
From: ShoppinTheNet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Rand in your post you ask "To all: Can anyone explain what's so bad about the Johnson-Lett agreement whereby Dr. Johnson proxies his shares to Jimmy John?" As of today the only one who has voiced an issue with this plan (that I have heard) is Jay Taylor. Considering the fact that most stock holders have been quie, and JT sold his shares today, we may not have an issue. Jimmy if you want to know how to vote them shares call me not Jay!!! LOL