I can't see the phylogica in this. The business model is we have...

I can't see the phylogica in this. The business model is we have what they need. If we have progressed to them wanting what we need why are restricted in informing our shareholders? If we do are they going to walk away from a propriety solution to try lucky dip instead?

I see our alliances are with smart people so we are not selling snake oil. If we are then a lot of people's careers and reputations end. That many people in those positions are not going to risk that for a bag full of share options that will be worth nothing.

That being said that does not give them the right to satisfy their intellectual, career and financial success goals with our money without treating us as equal partners in this equation. Any shareholder selling out now because information has been withheld could not in reflection believe that the people witholding that information were acting in the shareholder's interest.

restating promises made earlier in the year that have not materialised is not updating shareholders. The absence of additional information it is not an update but a silence. Presentations at industry conferences to people who have no stake in the work are funded by shareholders and maybe we should be looking for ways to link that funding to getting priority attention in terms of presentation time. no information to shareholders, no confernces

Earlier in the year a statement was made about a paymnet that was not reflected in the accounts at the time. Further account updates have followed and it is not clear to me that the payment has been accounted for. It is not up to me to establish that. If you make claim about a payment and you make a claim about it's accounting then you need to square the leger at some point and ensure shareholders know and can verify what happend.

Over to you management, time to do your job