Thanks DSA. I'm not sure getting rid of Richard is the answer....

Thanks DSA. I'm not sure getting rid of Richard is the answer. Clearly there have been issues with the commercialisation process which has significantly delayed and impacted the company's progress towards generation of revenue and as MD, Richard must take responsibility for this, hence my surprise when Richard sought and the Board recommended shareholders approve the issue of the latest round of performance options. Why reward what has clearly been a failing? As already stated, I was even more surprised that there was not a larger shareholder vote against the performance options issued to Richard. We as shareholders really only get one chance to have a voice for how the company rewards its directors and senior executives so it should be used with maximum effect and a larger protest vote would have sent a clear message to the Board about shareholder unhappiness of where the company currently is at. Having said all that, I'm sure Richard still has a lot to offer on the scientific front. However I see this as being part of a larger issue associated with founding shareholders/directors and their continued role and management of the company they founded, especially controlling areas in which they have little or no expertise and the damage that can be done through this. The Board in particular should be aware of these risks and be very clear about what areas a founder should be involved in and what roles need to be completed by other experienced and qualified professionals. The recent appointment of the Commercial Manager is a good start and hopefully will sort this out (and quickly). Richard would do well not to interfere in this new person's role and let them get on with making this a great company.