You need to look before the Diasource purchase to see how ADO over reached itself.
The continual dilution was necessary because of a total failure to miss goals. The strategy was a failed one.
It's critical to understand this weakened ADO's position right from the start. It's been a series of strategic failures, which GC and his mates refuse to take any responsibility. It's always the other guy's fault.
The other guy who didn't take up the technology, because the business case to do so wasn't good enough.
The other guy who was the Canadian lender, who smelled blood in the water and pushed for a deal that GC couldn't agree to.
If we weren't vulnerable at that point, they wouldn't have pushed.
Ferghana pulled out? No, they were brokers to the deal with Diasource. It was the Canadian funding deal which collapsed at the last minute, as explained above.
Diasource did what any company would do. They believed in the science but sceptical of the commerciality. So they refused to agree to fund ADO's purchase of the takeover, as part of the takeover terms.
Now think about it. ADO was purporting to take Diasource over. Which company in it's right mind would accept terms other than those that they required?
You seem to think that Diasource is some kind of charity organisation. No. It's a commercial organisation and ADO failed to deliver promised returns. In fact it was constantly on life support.
Why was it in this weakened state? Total misjudgement on GC's part. Blind optimism and a refusal to face facts.
Everything unravelled from that point. Why would Diasource continue to accept a remote CEO with no idea of their day to day business decisions, when ADO had lost credibility with the 'takeover'.
No they took a defensive position. People say ADO failed to deliver because Diasource did not implement ADO technology across the board. But that was never part of the deal. They only ever were open to implementing ADO technology on NEW tests. I think they'd grown weary of putting their hand in their pockets TBH.
I'd be careful about your allegations of what you claim Diasource Directors intended. Because it's clear you've never spoken to any and have no idea what was involved. This is not only in finding a buyer, and facilitating that but the details involved.
Fact: ADO was totally out of its depth when it did the 'takeover' of Diasource.
It must have made promises it couldn't deliver on, in generating revenue to finance the takeover.
You need to think about why THAT was the weak link in the chain of events.
It was the failure of companies to take up ADO technology. All the rest is just commercial reality.
Many worked long hours to right the ship and find a buyer and execute the purchase. One got fired for his enormous efforts not just to do that, but to put ADO onto a realistic commercial footing.
According to your narrative, they are all effectively white collar criminals.
Wake up. Think about this from a different perspective.
Blind loyalty and anger about what happened to the SP is unproductive and unfair.
I used to fall for the same narrative.
THEN I sought more particulars and revised my views.
Do I want a Diasource Director on the Board? Yes I do. Because the one we have is a huge commercial success. He understands how to negotiate, he understands opportunity and he understands commercial reality.
Unlike you, I don't form a view and refuse to revise it.
ADO Price at posting:
1.6¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)