My rebuttals to your points:

1) This isn't really much of a point so I'm not sure what to say. Are you saying new slates should only be presented when a company's sp is high? The low sp is the main reason Peter should be fired! Because of inability to translate good properties into market value!

2)You're own personal experience with a completely different and unrelated company has nothing to do with this.

3)You're excuse for Peter is "sure, he's paying himself a lot, but look at this other company! They're even worse!" This is ridiculous. I could just as easily point out 30 juniors whose CEO's make much less than Peter.

4)"Besides a low share price...there's not much else to complain about." Uhhhh...share price is kind of a big deal. You can't just sweep that aside. That's like saying "besides all the death, there really isn't any downside to war!"

5) Yes, you are correct that I am invested here because I see value. I also see a complete inability to convert that value into share price appreciation. That's kind of important. What good is all this value if our leadership can't get the market to recognize it? "I recognize value where the market currently doesn't.." Yes, but the problem is that the market hasn't recognized the value in years and will continue to ignore it unless major changes are made.

"I just think that it costs money to get rid of one board and costs extra to replace that board with another."

Of course it does. That isn't a reason not to do it. It's a necessary cost. It will cost us even more as shareholders if we keep along this awful path we're on.