You do not seem to understand that oversimplifying nearly always is going to be inaccurate.
Sure Diasource started to run things their way. This was after it became obvious that we did not have the stupendous deals rolling in that GC had spruiked. To protect themselves, they must have insisted on terms that refused to allow ADO to finance the 'takeover' using their money. They must have allowed this for a time, and then called a halt. This logic means that Diasource indulged ADO as long as it possibly could, and ADO couldn't enforce a term that didn't exist. How can you fault this logic. It's obvious from how things played out and you don't even try. Instead we get the same oversimplified mantra which is a variation on 'we wus robbed'.
But were we?
You might think that Diasource should regard itself as the plaything of ADO, but quite understandably, Diasource wanted ADO to bring to the table it's end of the bargain. When it showed no signs of doing so, Diasource acted to protect themselves from being bled. This must have been a strategic move because it was asking ADO to take responsibility for it's own financing.
Also it was probably a strategic move on their part to not take on ADO technology possibly because it was yet another expense when they were already bankrolling ADO's purchase of them! They acted defensively.
You need to step aside from anger which so easily blinds logic, and try to understand what a successful company behaves like, and what an unsuccessful company behaves like.
People like you pretend that if Diasource had taken on ADO technology we all would have been saved. It's a line that GC wheeled out to me over and over. I certainly fell for it for a long time until I decided to step back and ask some questions of the other side.
Yet where is the logic in that? Does it bear closer scrutiny?
Sure, Diasource would have had top level tests, but would it have affected their bottom line positively? Not for a long lead time and I don't think they saw ADO to be anything but a liability to them at that point.
It doesn't help to think in black and white. If you do that, you are't taking in new information in. You're just repeating the same old propaganda that you've been fed.
If you call someone just to unload on them and abuse them, as many ADO shareholders seem to have done, otherwise they would have better information, it might make you feel good in the short term. But you have isolated yourself from valuable information.
ADO got smashed from it's own doing long before Diasource got into the game. The continual rounds of rampant spending, and share issues eventually caught up with it. The deal with Diasource manifested at a crucial time. Diasource must have been acutely aware of this which is why they protected themselves in the deal terms. If you don't understand this, you need to understand more about how companies operate in the real world.
GC understood the terms of the deals and he signed them.
Pretending he was blindsided by evil forces of the empire is absurd. He was in a desperate situation of his own making, but meanwhile he seems busy blaming everyone else even as recently as the AGM.
The deals with lenders of the last resort? Well the fact that you are even dealing with them is due to your desperation. The key question is what got you there?
Lenders of the last resort behave in opportunist ways. How this continues to surprise you is some kind of feat.
(Perhaps it continued to surprise GC because he had the luxury of working for Roche which would have almost always had the upper hand in it's dealings, as a powerful multinational. He also would have been protected by their internal financial checks. This security might breed a dangerous naivete and foolhardiness in decision making an entirely different role an entreprenuer/CEO for ADO. I don't know what all the factors were, but these seem a real possibility. I am realistic about the commercial world. I can only urge you to be the same.)
I've explained the commercial realities AND logic of how this must have transpired over and over and it's nearly impossible to get through to you. It's like talking to a brick wall. (no offence intended BW). So here goes again.
Was ADO really smashed from the deal with Diasource? Surely this is an oversimplification, just as being smashed from lenders of the last resort is indicative of your own parlous state.
As I see it the deal with Diasource for the period in which they bailed out ADO, bought ADO valuable time in which it could land deals. Nothing of substance eventuated!
Then the winding back of the Diasource deal and the sale to the third party netted ADO $6mil. So ADO was saved from itself again.
All this didn't happen just by magic. People were hard at work behind the scenes implementing sound corporate governance, brokering deals, and shoring up ADO from bankruptcy and putting a new financial strategy with realistic goals into place. Those people you imagine are the enemies of ADO. Hardly!
The enemies are overoptimistic spruiking, unrealistic unmet targets, overspending, colossal self remuneration, financed by share issues and desperate deals.
The last one is a symptom, it's not the primary cause. The propaganda which blames the desparate deals never puts the real culprits into the firing line. It expects others in the business world to behave like charitiable institutions. Diasource did not deviate from that but they did give ADO time to prove itself and co-operated in the sale.
Semi retired you are always crying foul and never seem prepared to rethink your assumptions. Blind aggro can be fatal to a company. As a major shareholder I can only hope you become part of the solution and not part of the problem.
A consolidation seems inevitable, in order for ADO to be able to raise funds in order to carry out the targetted, and well thought out strategy now in place.
In terms of the future, Joe Maeji's views should be rated over all others. He's architect of the core of the company, the science. He's seen his work confounded by dunderheaded moves and misguided initiatives and seen several rebirths of the corporation to drive the dream.
My bet is he's had enough of that. He showed signs of that in his speech which gave full acknowledgement of how misguided he had been in opposing Alan Studley and by implication, the Chairman.
I just hope the Chairman will stay on, we get a new CEO in place and the team works as a functional whole and not some kind of punching bag for hurt egos. Joe for one has IMO had enough of that.
PS sorry for the bold and underlining. But I'm getting weary of your refusal to face undeniable facts. IMO we need to face them and THEN move on (in that order).
(20min delay)