Joe isn't 'most probably' indispensible.
He's the inventor! He's completely and utterly indispensible. This is an intellectual property company, which hasn't managed to commercialise the IP in a meaningful way. YET.
He is IT. Without Joe we cease to exist in any meaningful way. He's the brains behind the operation. We just have a collection of patents we don't know what to do with. How could you be so casually dismissive about these realities?
I'm amazed you think some lab technicians equate to Joe, and because they lost their jobs, Joe is more valuable....surely you can see this is false reasoning. Lab technicians act under instructions. JOE's. And they were probably surplus to requirements. Ask Joe if they were. He's the one who backed the outsourcing method introduced by Alan Studley as part of a wider reform. It's the Chairman behind that.
Next: This is a complex situation. Making dismissive remarks because my posts won't fit onto twitter only underscores how off the mark you are there.
That's right....I don't like oversimplifications. They're attractively deceptive. I'm no fan of Trump because he doesn't like reflection. He doesn't like to read much and he certainly wouldn't like my posts. For being too long. That's why he's on twitter.
People like him want simple solutions.
No EGM is a preferable outcome to having one. No question about that. But the threat of one has brought the company a needless series of shocks. Have we understood what is going on there? Have we seriously thought about who brought it and what their motivations are?
A shoot first ask questions later policy isn't terribly wise. I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the discussions were taking place on the negotiated outcome. I think some home truths were probably issued. Some might have come from Joe M who must have been at his wit's end with the nonsense. And yes he IS indispensible. That's why his opinion matters. I said this before the AGM. Which is why I carefully noted his mood and statements.
Why do you want to shut down more detailed analysis?
I'm saying the lack of understanding of the crucial role of AS and JH in setting down sound governance is very poor. Why don't you want to look at that?
What is the relevance? Well I remain concerned that RM through First Cape and the other mob can pull a loaded gun out any time they likes. I'm not convinced RM and GC deserves to hold all the shares they do either. Not when they created a situation through poor financial management where spending was out of control. No revenue, and CRs like confetti. Then the loan to First Cape, the conflict of interest. It's all blah blah blah to you?
Throwing insults at me like I use too many words, or am Trumpesque is not productive. You're using insults to avoid the points I'm making.
Do you imagine the current CEO just floated in? Or that GC or RM had anything to do with his being sourced?
That's why I am saying "think again" about how surplus to requirements you imagine the Chairman to be.
I'm pretty pleased that Stefan is in place as CEO along with his low tolerance for the antics. I can only hope that RM has learned from the near death experience of the proposed EGM and doesn't try it again. I can't say for sure if GC had a part in it, but I think we can make educated guesses. What's MS been doing?
Have RM (and probably GC) been persuaded to put away their guns for good? Because I'm far from convinced they have a clue about what is necessary to move us forward. Let alone what good governance looks like based on their track record.
But I think Stefan does. Let's hope he's persuaded them.
(20min delay)