What is Roger Fletchers position on the board now?...as Roger is obviously the most important and pracatical member.

To answer the question, no. The new board does not have a collection of required skill to manage the wool marketing industry in crisis, let alone improve on it, being fair to all those elected.

We have a collection of several technically-experienced sheep breeders, woolgrowers and scientists, a topmaker, a wool processor and a meat processor. Where's the collective skill in corporate finance? Corporate governence? International consumer marketing?

The wool industry marketing bodies that have existed over 40 years, when run by exactly these type of people who just got elected, have never gained the creditability of the marketplace. Our consumers (the retailers) don't care what our problems are, whether it be mulesing or otherwise.

They worry about the animal activists. My family in-law operate 28 retail clothing (including high end wool garments) outlets in the UK and Europe. They have been threatened. It's real.

Everything Brian (former chairman) has been saying is fact. From a business management point of view, he's on the money. The directors kicked off the board never had the chance to show what they could do, but in their short time, they made real sense in what they did decide on. They showed leadership, unity, professionalism and dedication.

I am lucky, my 5,500 sheep can easily convert to meat sheep and I will. This is the finish of the wool industry. Russia is set to take us over. Do not underestimate it. We farmers are our own worst enemy and I'm afraid on this occasion we deserve everything we get in the future of the wool industry.

Read the other comments on Farmonline and ask yourself why most concur with my opinion and which group makes more sense, as opposed to blaming the best board we have ever had.

The majority of woolgrowers chose to blame them for the last 40 years of frustration and now they ask for more of the same.

Dixie...you are spot on. The really scary thing is the AWGA AWI board members won't even comprehend just how ill-equipped they are to direct AWI.

Beleive it or not, in less than 2 days they have created more havoc and uncertainty among retailers than anyone thought possible.

The anonymity, through the use of “screen names”, to express opinions on articles to the extent that one may be able to over emphasise any such opinion to the point of personal attacks bordering on untruthfulness. The opinions expressed by the screen name of “Sir George” leading up to the AWI AGM which were, and still are post AWI AGM, heavily weighted in favour of the “Chairman’s” ticket by constantly attacking the personal and business creditability of the “Olsson” ticket. This had and still has the reverse effect. “Sir George” did more damage to the Chairman’s ticket than anything the Olsson ticket could have said or done. One can only assume that “Sir George” is involved in the wool industry however, at an earlier time “Sir George” was asked to declare what he or she did for a living only, to be told in reply by “Sir George” to and quote, “it's none of your business”. Under the anonymity of the screen name, how hard would have it been for Sir George to say “I’m a wool grower”. This element of untruthfulness through anonymity only embeds scepticism into the reader. It was surprising that nobody on the Chairman’s ticket, via this media, did not distance themselves from the comments of the proxy person going by the name of Sir George. Now we have entering the fray another proxy person by the name of “whistlin'dixie” who claims to have, amongst other things, quote from 19/11/2008: “is a woolgrower, agribusiness consultant, and with family connections to a retail empire (who not only specialise in high quality fashions)” and from 21/11/2008: “My family in-law operate 28 retail clothing (including high end wool garments) outlets in the UK and Europe. They have been threatened. It's real.” “whistlin'dixie” accuses, very strongly and without any proof, that the newly elected AWI board directors (quote 21/11/2008): “does not have a collection of required skill to manage the wool marketing industry in crisis, let alone improve on it, being fair to all those elected.” and further (21/11/2008): “Where's the collective skill in corporate finance? Corporate governence? International consumer marketing?”. Without any proof, these comments by the proxy person “whistlin'dixie” defy the fact that the newly elected AWI board directors have not even started in this position and they are all very successful and ethical people in their own personal right. If, as has been threatened by “whistlin'dixie”, that he or she as the case may be, is going to leave the wool industry as result of the majority decision, then leave, tell it to somebody that cares what you do and, it’s a free country whilst ever the views as expressed by you do not ascend to the majority. My (real) name is Rob Wass and I am a 3rd generation wool grower, forced levy (tax) payer and I’ll vote for whom ever I like. In this case it was the Olsson ticket.

What is worrying is that the chairman of a Board says that he will be doing the best for his animals on his own property. This shows a complete lack of understanding of corporate governance and responsibility - he should be doing the best for the wool industry NOT personal gain.

How could it possibly help the wool industry if Wal Merriman did not care for his sheep? Is Corporate Governance another whacky religion? To paraphrase that marvellous satirist Al Capp, "What is good for Wally Merriman is good for wool". Really and truly, in this case it is.