It's taken a very long time indeed for this quality of response to come through with at least more neutral content. I have asked for it many times.
The reason for my prolific posts are the type of repeated demands in here - from various quarters - that because the company looks like turning around, that everyone should cheer on and congratulate those imagined to be responsible, (most recently this has been GC and Matt) for their efforts.
Perhaps in the competition to have me binned, you haven't noticed them? I'm responding to those, see?
Is it necessary that everyone be silenced that doesn't go along with the cheer squad? Surely not.
As for your summaries. I disagree on many levels.
Firstly you're requiring that unless legal action follows, any reference to the discrepancies, murkiness and unknowns, should cease. Because, apparently, they're not useful.
I dispute that, particularly as the requirements that everyone be cheering on people who I think have been less than forthcoming on salient matters.
Why? Diversity in discussion. Different perspectives.
This the bottom line. Your stated frustration in not being able to have me perma-binned should take this into account.
Secondly, your summaries contain many deficiencies. For instance, early on considerable capital was raised and GC and RM were to seek funding. What were they doing all that time? Did they go overseas to do that? Spending and coming back with nothing? Surely we shouldn't have a completely uncritical eye on this sort of thing. What they heck were they doing? Is it that they couldn't make the case because the business case for diagnostics was never sound? History says so. Because the money making element in the company isn't diagnostics, it's batteries.
This is why the roadshow was so unimpressive. AND the ASX rules require that market sensitive information be released generally, so it shouldn't matter at all that I didn't attend in person. The preso ann should be enough. And it was.
The linkages with First Cape and RM need examination. It's not just some kind of academic exercise.
It's to balance discussion. Particularly as I've been instructed by various quarters that I have to (as we all must, it was a general instruction), see RM and First Cape as saviours of the company.
The point being, who made saviour behaviour necessary? Is it like the fireman who lights a fire for the glory of then putting it out?
Diasource? That's a throwaway line to you, whereas I think it's more complex. I think, as others have also suggested, that someone put a very glossy show about how much ADO would bring to them in terms of revenue on diagnostics (GC's baby), and they bought the story.
THEN it didn't happen. So Diasource wanted out. Naively GC wanted Diasource to finance it's own takeover, whereas ostensibly ADO was meant to be doing the takeover. Surely this is a special kind of conceit? The bewildered amazement and anger because Diasource said nup, we're not buying this story anymore, means somebody was getting an education in commercial reality that they didn't want.
It IS purely commercial reality that Diasource wanted out because ADO couldn't deliver. Remember they removed GC as CEO and I'd like to know the reason for that, but I suspect they were beginning to realise what was going on by then and didn't want a CEO based in Australia who wasn't delivering for his own company his own takeover because hardly any of the promised revenue materialised, dictating for theirs. Also Diasource co-operated with the sale.
The fact that ADO hasn't attracted insto investors also contributes to the quality of discussion. It's been cheer squad vs doubters and let's smash the doubters. I don't count FC as an insto in the widely accepted sense. They have had inside links with the company for starters and I don't see their analyst reports, if they exist.
Many many things I disagree with you on. I do wish you'd read them and consider them seriously and put aside your personal feelings. The assumptions being made about ADO generally need taking apart.
But instead, many think it's me that needs taking apart. This is your mistake, not only about the points of dispute, but on how to conduct discussion in a fair and reasonable way.
But you don't take on the points I'm making. I can see yours but I'm adding a layer there that you aren't taking on. It's a huge topic and not easily dismissed with just one line. ADO has retail investors and the quality of discussion reflects that.
Nobody will be happier than me if and when ADO turns around, make no mistake. It's just that I don't have rose coloured glasses on.
The ongoing demands that I do, the appetite to have me silenced should be odious to any fair minded person.
Expand
