Firstly thanks for appreciating the effort. I get a lot of criticism for the length of my posts, but they're an honest effort to look at this in an analytical way.
As you've probably noticed, not many are making this attempt.
If I try to just make plain neutral comments, I get criticised for not being entertaining enough. Boring, they say.
Others can make highly inflammatory and insulting comments and never get rebuked. Why? They're on the side of the majority view. Again that doesn't make them right.
I'm amazed at the way in which the Chairman has been depicted in here. Nobody says anything rude about Richard Martin. In fact most people seem to have taken a view that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". That's not analytical, it's tribal.
But the standard I'm held to is that I should be a people pleaser absolutely all the time. I get taken to task for minor infractions. This goes on and on. Implied insults. Condescension. OK. Well sorry if you saw it that way.
It's impossible to discuss this very complex situation fulsomely (it's complex), to the standard you require of me, and not of others.
Others are free to insult, make unsubstantiated claims and jeer?
Where have you taken them to task over that? Surely you get that's somewhat unfair.
The thing I'm trying to do is engage in productive discussion.
The underlying point I was making stands.
Information is known to the Board that is not known by employees. This needs to be acknowledged. He or she* isn't an employee of Diasource either. So they only has insight into the impact of the deal as an employee, and not on the inside thinking of the Board or of Diasource.
How many substantive points have I made that people refuse to engage with? Plenty.
Again you asked me why I have turned on GC. If you'd read my comments in any detail, the explanation is there. If I explain it yet again, I get criticised for spamming.
I can tell you where the turning point was: when I realised GC can never admit to making any mistakes.
Ever.
He simply refuses to accept that
he knew that the market would not widely or rapidly adopt our technology in the diagnostics space, because of the regulatory barriers to entry. Translation: the cost.
Now he must have known this from way back. But he went on with his roadshow, selling the story to the friendly LT holding masses. Yes he's always responded to my calls too. But IMO he filled my head with diversions and claims that are doubtful when put under the microscope. I tended to believe him, just like everyone else, because he's apparently such a nice guy. Everyone loves GC.
What shifted my thinking:
Why did GC allow ADO to get to the stage where we were financially, (on our knees) and not seek a partner earlier ?
Now this is key.
If he acted earlier we wouldn't have had the financing problems, and we would have had a contractual arrangement that stipulated that Diasource would adopt the technology).
As it stands surely the problem was we had no leverage over Diasource to adopt, because they were bailing ADO out. Continually. The deal started to stink from their point of view. You have to put yourself in their shoes and not just leap to conclusions...they're stealing our IP is one).
Instead he points the finger and blames. No different to the ADO employee. But understanding what went wrong is a strategic question. The employees were angry at the cutbacks.
But Joe Maeji understands. He clearly showed that at the AGM. That speech he made was crucial and I anticipated it in my mega posts pre AGM, when I was gamely making an attempt to sort through the mess.
My thinking was transparent.
Few appreciated my effort to try and sort this out on rational and not tribal grounds. Few it seems, understood the significance of the speech by Joe Maeji at the AGM.
I still think it is pivotal. Implicitly it reflects on GC's leadership in getting us to a weakened bargaining position, all the rest are consequences. Including the smashed SP. Including Diasource apparently getting cold feet and wanting out.
This is analysis according to commercial realities. Not beliefs.
A disgruntled ex employee who left prior to Joe Maeji coming out at the AGM and nailing his colours to the mast, is not.
Related questions:
What efforts did GC make with the financing options?
Why was First Cape given the running?
Why did that contract not restrict future dealings.
@ds says such terms where the stock is sold to the market and smashes the SP are standard (Surely he means for this level of financing, ie. lenders of last resort). They are not standard for high end financing.
You can put all the restrictions you want if you have leverage in your bargaining power. Eg. lots of other willing lenders. We didn't have that. Ask why. It comes back to our weak financial position.
This is why competence is a key issue with GC and he avoids talking about it like the plague.
Again:
What are the governance standards that applied to RM?
Why has he been making claims that Diasource is after the IP?
Wasn't Diasource just unimpressed with his governance and wanted the heck out of the situation?
Was RS from Diasource unimpressed with GC's governance, but impressed with the battery tech which will not have the same barriers to market entry? Is that why he's still with us?
Meanwhile people are happy because you've taken me to task over several minor points, and left most of my substantive points and questions unremarked.
A few people are following my logic, despite the constant jeers and the ignore campaign. That makes it all worth it.
Those who can't resist the temptation to have a go at me personally, along the lines that others have instead of engaging in the issues, need a rethink. Double standard are being applied here.
Where are you taking them to task for insults?
I hope when you return you will think about what I've said and respond. Also give some thought to the points I have raised aside from the ones you picked out. If you'd done that before you'd see that in the many previous posts I've made, the answers to your questions are there.
This is what makes it necessary for me to repeat them. It's not spamming, it's a result of lack of engagement on the issues. It makes you wonder what we are all here for. Discussion or blood sport?
