As a general response, I'd like to start with this;"PIONEERING...

As a general response, I'd like to start with this;

"PIONEERING THE WORLDS HIGHEST PERFORMING, LEADING-EDGE DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY"

That's the statement on the EOS website. Strong words, yet seemingly struggling to get ahead of the pack. Why?

If it's (the company) pioneering and leading-edge, shouldn't all investors in EOS be rich? Hands up who's still in the game after having your invested capital totally destroyed? If only EOS had these capabilities, then wouldn't Hanwha have struck a deal with EOS instead of Elbit systems? I stand to be corrected (and again further on).

Personally, I feel that EOS do have excellent technology. However, I feel that not only are EOS not trusted by their shareholders, I also think that the issue(s) that surround EOS are so deeply ingrained, that no prime wants to do business with them. Ukraine - big deal, here today, gone tomorrow. No one wanted to do a deal with spacelink and now, EOS are back to their glorious self and are looking for partners to assist with funding. (see: cap raise coming)

"PIONEERING THE WORLDS HIGHEST PERFORMING, LEADING-EDGE DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY"

Let's take a step back. EOS lost all credibility by capitulating and as a result, borrowed money at super high rates from third tier lenders. I bet you didn't even know that their "lenders" were actually in the business of lending. EOS then don't release and disclose to the market their financials, leading to suspension. Then today, we see a total balls-up in delaying the conference call and eventually, the market gets to read the first piece of important information located on page 5 of the presentation under the heading "Status of half year report". 3 dot points that suddenly, awoke the perception of TRUST that the business was trying so hard to reconstruct. They failed (miserably) in an instant. If you were a prime, imaging reading that? Would you do business with EOS - or would you do business with Elbit or any other business with a more respectful reputation? Hell, they can't even release a yearly report on time or facilitate a conference call as planned.

I managed to hear some of the conference call. To my ears, the CEO was all-at-sea. Continually repeating himself with information that we'd all heard many times already. Where was the real information? Or, was that it?

For those who think that the business is upfront and honest, well - good luck. Figures seemed to coincide with what we already knew. To think that there's international delegates out in the Australian desert checking out the 35kw DEW prototype. Is that what was actually said, or was I imagining that? The financial results looked great. But when you consider that they were coming off such a low base, were they really any good? What about the conditional contracts announced in April where testing would take place over "the coming weeks". We're talking over 4 months ago. Seeing as the company is so honest, when were they going to decide to dutifully disclose to their shareholders that (for whatever reason), the weapons are yet to be tested at the place of intended engagement. People would've bought shares based on those announcements. Something well and truly STINKS with all of this.

I stand to be corrected because I was unable to listen to the entire conference call, but was there any information provided by EOS in relation to the IFV Land 400 program? If so, what was said? If not, why wasn't it mentioned? Did anyone ask?

What we've seen today is that maybe the names have changed, but ultimately, some things haven't. Mark Gardner from Maqro Capital summed things up pretty well by saying "I would never invest in this company in a million years"

"PIONEERING THE WORLDS HIGHEST PERFORMING, LEADING-EDGE DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY"

It's not even funny anymore.