I'm surprised they could be in final contract negotiations with...

I'm surprised they could be in final contract negotiations with this client.

Then some shareholders voice that they reject the Proposal from STG as it undervalues the company.

One of the reasons shareholders cited on the public call and then ****** TV was the 3 (new) large contracts, this forming the largest of those 3 and the only one not yet signed.

Then 2 to 3 business days later the contract is delayed.

The comment today about the delay of this large contract "The period of delay is uncertain, but we do expect that the project will not now form part of the revenue stream". This appears to be an incomplete sentence, what revenue stream? the first half or the second half?

The contract hasn't been lost just the timing is uncertain, which given that it wasn't signed yet there was always uncertainty. So whether it is signed this half or next half it is still material to the value of the organisation and should be considered.

Nevertheless management should now be comfortable providing guidance as this contract was cited as the reason for withdrawing guidance; for the first time.

The signed contracts: "2 large contracts, 4-5 medium contracts and numerous small accounts" is still a record for EOL by a margin. So I feel in the interest of fairness and transparency that guidance should be provided. Of course guidance can be bent to suit the agenda of the board and management but nevertheless it would be a very important data point.


A series of extraordinary corporate events:

- A large contract was delayed, 2-3 business days after investors cited this as a reason to reject the bid.
- No guidance provided, despite a strong outlook (record number of new contracts).
- One board member with 14.2% ownership REJECTS the bid.
- Hacking of 'corporate data' not 'customer data' just prior to the proposal being made. No information has been leaked publicly as far as we know.
- Bidder has access to information shareholders do not.