To appreciate the FUTURE ,, insight into the Coldry Callejes synergies are compulsary reading.
If a simple google search ''Maddingley Coldry '' is carried out,
Then click on Maddingley Technologies PTY LTD, a document submitted to vcec.vig.gov.au entitled ;
Enquiry into the barriers to Regional economic development
will appear near the top of the option list.
The processes of Coldry and Matmor are referred to as researched to commercial viability circa 1994 .
This means we are approaching a ''generation in time'' without any generation of shareholder profit.
Vested stakeholders, no matter how much family ''passion'' is implied, will not do things without making a buck.
By profit,,, I do not mean the decades of alleged insider pumping and dumping of the public listed scrip
This article will give a good background re; the slo-mo that to date has SPUN DRY share holders thru decreasing share value relative to the decades of spin.
You will note, the submission states the Maddingly Coldry facility is called ''commercial'' .
Commercial legally implies Commercially viable.
Where on the company's ledgers do we see black ink from the Maddingly Coldry PTY LTD plant owned and operated on behalf of shareholders ?
It has never been a matter of cleaning up the technology ( although there are many potentials for improvement that can be incorporated )
The main area that was always in need of clean up,, has been cleansed ....... Perhaps a marketing position with C bros is a good way to stay in touch but out of public sight ?
Whether, xx limbo Jimbo xx 's posting regarding ''too little too late'' ( comparing lignite fuidized bed technology to Coldry's place in the sun ) comes to pass, will depend on just how the MANAGEMENT of this commercial technology is embraced by Govt's and other interested tech stakeholder entities (the likes of Tincom) is the presence of ''actual'' contractual competence, and a team Tincom would be confident to deal with.
Historically,, ( and remember history effects FUTURE ) some 4 or so yrs ago now, HC posters, you will recall, were shouting for the then ECT Helmsman, Con Galtos's head on a platter, due to an alleged self serving ego play by him that saw one of the company's best EVER chances to become a market force, with a REAL coal supply, c/- a very successful businessman. Yes ,, a highly respected Coal mine owning businessman prepared to put skin into the Co and take up an executive board position, with his own coal reserves,a genuine, insightful and credible view to the FUTURE, with specific industry connections,,,, was made to feel like crud,, due to ego.
Ego that puts share holder value in the back seat is company sabotage. It must not be rewarded. It must be eradicated.
By historical comparison,,, ''IF'' an entity wanting to create mutual benefit to a public company is made to feel like crud and marginalized via poor international relations and tardy contractual ''mistakes'' then you have to suspect,,, apples do not fall far from the tree.
It would be imprudent at this point, to overlook the fact that Mr Townsend whom had initiated the Tincom deal, would rightly benefit greatly from the Tincom deal,,, Very worthy indeed,, After all, it was his efforts that initiated it. ,,, shareholders would also profit,, but a CEO with out skin or deal initiatives re such a deal,,,, would not.
It is now simple historical fact that Con Galtos, ex ESI Helmsman, ''saw'' to the appointment of his son Kos Galtos.
With a retired Chairmen seemingly prepared to take a bullet for Con but not prepared to put skin in the Co or as history would now imply , not able to create shareholder value,inexorably implies,, not being able to effect a cohesive or concordant board,,, and was also in hindsight a pretty tardy way to keep a microcap R&D listed co alive.
(20min delay)