boardroom radio video, page-119

Thank you for your support Glyco.

I received a call yesterday from a somewhat angry GC who accused me being scurrilous in my posts on Hotcopper.

I tried to point out to him that I believed that more information could be provided without breaching any confidentiality terms of signed agreements and that we deserved to be provided with more information on progress in respect of all approaches made to ADO.

GC asked me if I thought that I could do a better job than the Board who carefully considered the position before authorising the release of any information. He also said that after our last discussion,when he idicated that some of the information could be provided in the next quarterly report, he was surprised/annoyed that I was continuing to raise the issue in a scurrlous manner on Hotcopper with statements that the failure reflected badly on GC and the Company. He also made reference to Mark Bouris, but as I had not mentioned him in any of my posts I did not respond.

I emphasised to GC that I believed that more information could be provided about all other dealings that ADO were involved in apart from the POC's which seemed to be the centre of attention at the present time. He did state that details had been provided about ADO scientists, on occasions, working with a number of different parties about the use of Mix&Go. I concedded that I was aware of that, but that they were fleeting mentions as compared to the recent announcement of ADO scientists being placed with POC's for 12 months at a time with fortnightly conferences and daily telephone calls.

I suggested to GC that in respect of the Bangs and Merck deals ADO could at least provide information stating that income had incresed by say 10% from and 12% from the other.

His rather forceful response was that it would alert their competitors about what they were doing and that is not how this business operates and that perhaps I should find another share such as BHP to invest in.

I tried to explain to him that I was generally happy with ADO but needed more detail to satisfy me that progress was being made particularly with income being generated from existing contracts. I pointed out that another poster on the forum had suggested that Merck were pricing their product too high and if that was the case how would sales and income for ADO be expected to increase.

He then went into a diatribe about me not knowing how this Industry or business in general operates and again suggested that I look at another investment more suitable to meet my requirements

This discussion continued for some time and I conceded that if the POC' were the big ticket item then they should be given priority but that we were still entitled to know more precisely what was going on in the other areas particularly in terms of income being generated and if this had shown positive increases in the years after the contracts were first signed. I exclude EBio from this request as it had been a recent signing and because of additional products being brought on stream any comparison could be meaningless.

There was no way we could reach agreement about what information could or could not be provided as he said I just did not how this business operates. However he did state that Tania had been given the task of possibly summarising the status and progress of ADO's dealings with other company approaches but that he had not heard back from her.

The conversaation was terminated on the basis that we agreed to disagree on these issues. I said that I would review the posts that I had made but believed that the points that I had raised were in fact valid.