I don't agree
we only take on a client if we know there's merit to doing so. Who knows what insights have surfaced in this time.
Your approach is highly procedural, which is cool, I just think you apply context from other processes to your analysis, doesn't mean you're outright wrong in a circumstance, rather that you might be but you don't contemplate that readily.
I can see an argument for window dressing this, I can also see an argument for logical process especially if we overlay any sense of manyana that Lux talks about. As I say, the comms issue is relevant.
An aspect of the behaviour Ive spoken about before is the long development cycle, short market attention span. If you were running this through all the operational, regulatory and distribution leads and challenges... you go mad listening to yourself opine Footmax. Wouldn't your ultimately get to the point of saying, well get there when we get there? Especially after potentially getting genuinely excited at completion of trials saying things like imminent, after being provided external advice, and then reading posts here ....
I don't have any insight to board saying they could do it themselves, my take on this they had a individual or two ( Becker and the other consultant ? -I cant remember the name). I suspect with whatever discussion mid year that led to the need for a more formal approach for both proper presentation and maximisation of value etc. If I were on the board, I would not want to say to market "I spoke to Bob over at BP and he liked it so we sold it" - Cmon! There's Governance value in the independence and demonstrable process of a consultant like this.
Then there's the CF and onboarding and analysis of results, possibly tendering of consult work... whos to say they didnt want this in place months ago, and liek everyone else, pulled it together for the AGM
Infer the worst if you like, just highlighting that imo this is likely a logical / natural business process
Expand
(20min delay)