Ann: Appointment of Executive Chairman, page-49

I'm dying to know as well, but I don't think his location had anything to do with the delays.

Delays were reported as the lab receiving far more samples than they expected. In my view, Chris and team should have known exactly how many samples were coming up weeks before they surfaced. So there's an issue at that point, but whether or not it was lack of clarity from SHP, missed communication, or lab mistake, we don't know for sure.

What could also have been done would be to direct the lab to assay 1/3 of the samples over full length to give indicative initial results and then follow up with the full results a few weeks later. Would have kept the news flow going.

What couldn't be helped is the general market sentiment, so we were always going to take a hit.

But that then comes to th other lines of speculation.... A major shareholder may well have been involved in this somehow, perhaps poor working relationship with Chris. But it could be the board and their view on strategy vs Chris's differing view?

My money is on the latter point, and I reckon views were very different and left little room for compromise