Whilst I understand your sentiment, I think judging Danny's...

Whilst I understand your sentiment, I think judging Danny's potential by looking at what ALC and BOT have achieved may not be completely fair.

I don't know much about ALC, but as I understand the case with BOT, a significant problem there is that the product hasn't lived up to the hype and the trials haven't performed to expectation. Without a product that can perform and attract outside money, biotechs seem to destined to just keep raising capital and further diluting holders to try and give prove out the product or find some other way to move ahead. In scenarios like this, there's probably little that a person like Danny can do (and maybe the fact that they live to fight another day is a successful outcome... shareholders have been diluted but not written off completely).

Hopefully we aren't going to have this problem with RAC (i.e. we do have a product that can attract that outside money) and Danny's skills can be applied in soliciting and optimising the sources of external money to provide the best return to shareholders.

Dr. T. seems pretty keen on getting to a 10% holding in RAC (and one would expect he intends to maintain that), so I would be surprised and extremely disappointed if we suddenly see another few hundred million shares being issued and doled out to institutions etc. Unless things go totally pear shaped of course in which case we're in trouble regardless of Danny's appointment.