I gather from some of the recent content that there are still...

I gather from some of the recent content that there are still quite a few accusations etc going around.

I would imagine the timing of departures was just a compromise - incumbents wouldnt have wanted to go and FC wanted them gone so a compromise. The owner of FC (not RM) obviously wanted them gone and my understanding is there was a queue of people behind that willing to sign on - your comments about the vote on AS may be an example of just how many felt the same way.

I'm on record as wanting RM to move on (but not via EGM as some were after) but you are right in your assesment of the money that FC (ie Matt dT) poured in over the years - unfortunately the leverage finance source in the latter period was a contributor to the SP demise - but JM also utilised this source and many of his shares have dissapeared into the abyss as a result. Maybe he should go too as a result? Nah - that's just a little joke - private holders should be able to do what they want but I hope there was the same governance around his arrangements as an employee and trading windows as people are appropriately demanding from management/Board. It still bugs me that FC have never put out a SS change notice when the last AR shows they clearly don't hold 15-16% anymore and their 249D admits it.

On the key person stuff - having seen the inventors/founders of science move on at another company I have invested in I can say it is better if they eventually do - otherwise you are solely dependent on one thing rather than the science or technology and that is not usually what any of us want to be invested in ie just one person. The other benefit, if you have a team under them, is that the team gets the chance to think differently and try the things that they were never encouraged to do - if you end up getting a senior scientific voice from outside as well then you really start to fire as they are usually well experienced in what the customers actually want.

Imagine if ADO after appointing a relevent CEO ended up having a CSO or CTO that had worked for the last 20 years at a lateral flow diagnostics or the last 5 in a Japanese battery manufacturer. Then imagine a BoD that includes 2 more new and independent directors currently working for a massive customer in one of the direct fields you are targetting and for cream you set up a scientific advisory board or for batteries a technology AB with reps from MIT, and the cutting edge of battery development etc JM can retire gracefully to one of the SAB or TAB roles while the lab keeps working on the developments. Sounds fanciful but I have just seen it done in another company and ADO has possibly just taken its first step on the same path with the appointment of a new CEO and the start of the BoD changes.

Apologies to Surges - I tried to find a way to post what I wanted to say without referring to another company but I am really trying to prove that it can be done and ADO may only be at the start of the reshaping but it could be worth it if they get it right.