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: Larry Macklin who wrote (14467)	7/19/1998 8:30:00 PM
From: sh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry, I highly respect your opinion and the independent investigation that you have done to date. However, encouraging us to keep current management in place is perplexing. If current management has had this much trouble in keeping Ledoux, which has been with us for years, in line, and the recent release is a testimony of their failure to do so, they run the risk of completely destroying this company. I believe in a two prong approach, the conventional route and the Johnson method. While you seem to be confident that current management can take us both routes, I see nothing but a falling apart of the years of hard work that Naxos has put into their testing program. Ledoux retreating on their previous assaying, as the latest release indicates? WHO COULD HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING. We have a management that seems incapable of keeping even the company basics in place. I have always advocated a new management team. I was always under the impression that current management was simply an interim management and that, to the best of my recollection, is what they told us they were. I would not be in support of keeping the current management as the permanent management. If they intend to remain entrenched, then it's time the shareholders stood up and exercised their votes to put in a new management team. I believe it will be very difficult to change things if it is not done at the shareholder meeting. I'm not advocating going back to the old management. I am advocating going to persons who will do as we were previously told and seriously work on a change in the current management. Who is that? I don't know at this time. All I know is good representation better be at the shareholder meeting. We need to continue with the Johnson method. If the current management is about to jeopardize that, in addition to the traditional route, which was recently dealt a serious blow when Ledoux was allowed to back step on its previous work, this company could really be in trouble of going the way of IPM. Entrenching current management is not the way to go IMHO. We need a strong management that can stand up to Ledoux and others who may seek to undo the years of hard and positive work the company has accomplished. sh

To: Larry Macklin who wrote (14467)	7/19/1998 9:57:00 PM
From: Lawrence Brierley	Respond to of 20681

Larry, I respect your opinion and have previously posted my gratitude for information and analysis you have shared on the thread, but I have serious misgivings about present management. The arguments between the two competing groups seem to have crystallized into each claiming the other side will pursue exclusively either SFA or J/L technology. I think that I can speak for most shareholders when I tell you that I am bitterly disappointed that SFA seems to be running into the same consistency problems that plagued J/L a few months ago. All who have a financial stake in this company are presumably less concerned with the method which is ultimately found to be successful, as with whether success is achieved with any technique at all! I agree completely with Neal that no director should have a conflict of interest in making the decision about whether a given technique is favoured, but I would feel a lot more comfortable with a Board, and especially a president who personally have a lot on the line if this company fails. Mssrs Kemp and Gordon have no meaningful financial stake in this company. They have had ample opportunity over the years to accumulate a position in the company with all of the options that have passed through their hands, but have elected to sell. I raise this issue not to disparage them. They have a right to do what they have done, and personal reasons may have dictated this course of action. However, their lack of shares necessarily diminishes their incentive to see this company succeed. If Naxos collapses they lose some prestige and go back to their day jobs living happily ever after. If they have a personal antagonism for someone in the company management, they would have a lot less interest in reaching some sort of working condominium with that person or group than would a director whose net wealth stood to take a major hit in the event of failure. They would also have less incentive to swallow their pride and alter course if they are wrong. Naxos needs in management some who bring specific mining skills and experience. Apart from these individuals I want as directors ONLY THOSE WHO WILL SHARE THE PAIN if we fail. On another note, I have before stated that consistency in assaying FL clay by any method may be a chimera. Rand's suggested shift in emphasis to recovery from drilling and assay may be the only path to success if this soil is so capricious. In the years I have been following Naxos there have been too many good labs finding good results on the same samples from which others recover little or nothing, to be very optimistic that one day they will all concur perfectly. Perhaps this is the curse of Franklin Lake. Let me close by wishing you all well, and to all in management who monitor this thread, please do us the service of being open minded about all potential options for treatment of that clay. Just the best, Lawrence