Share
8,907 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 6709
clock Created with Sketch. 22/12/17
23:24
Share
Originally posted by dolcevita
↑
This is classic guilt by association .scientific capacity only?AND Director of the very finance company that much more convincingly "shafted us" : First Cape.his responsibility as CEO that the company was in that state, wasn't it?perilously close to that, or stopping short of that but dropping colossal hints all over the place and raising expectations (so Matt Sanderson and a now angry crowd). Gifted salesmen, each.with the Canadians as they became increasingly more aware of risk as the POC1 deal started to evaporate and doubts grew over the rest. (Circumstances suggest this was the case).Diasource didn't implement our technology across the board. They didn't do that for precisely the same reason other companies didn't do that; huge regulatory cost. (Yet he knew that at the time of the AGM prior to the execution of the deal. Because he told me it would be new tests only. I believe at that point he was simply winging it.) He'd put himself in a position where he had no choice but to accept terms that were appropriate to that level of risk as perceived by Diasource and their lawyers. You have to ask yourself what would any other company in their position have done.yet another betrayal . But is it realistic let alone fair, to frame what happened in those terms? Surely it shows lack of commercial acumen if all you can do is blame others. we were meant to be taking them over !"She'll be right" is not a working philosophy in any field involving risk management. First Cape do a deal that was good for ADO shareholders? Not so much! Were we desperate? Yes.capacity to bring us commercial deals ?good risk strategies in place so we don't overreach again?
Expand
Sorry DV , I will not respond to your pages of venom , invest your $? somewhere else if you don't like what is going down with ADO ,some think you are crazy but still love you ?
