Thank you for your correction in respect to Tracy's position, I...

Thank you for your correction in respect to Tracy's position, I did not keep myself aware of this change. However I would argue Tracy obviously remains committed to the company, recently buying additional shares.

With Tracy and Mike stepping down as CEO and Deputy CEO this certainly addresses a small component of those corporate overheads, with Tony's remuneration being lower than Mike's.

I would disagree in respect to Mike being hindered by the board in getting things happening initially. Mike as CEO with a friendly board had significant time to get things working. I disagree with much of how the integration process was undertaken and the timing contributing to substantial increases in corporate and practice overheads, for little apparent benefit.

I cant speak to David Usasz's relationships, it would seems from what you are saying David is friends with everyone and it would be difficult or him to hire anyone that he doesn't know. Obviously being a partner at PWC and working M&A he would develop many relationships, I'd rather the company looked to fill positions with known and appropriate prospects than taking a punt on an unknown individual at this point. The entire acquisition team from my understanding was employed my Mike, filled with friends and former colleagues.

I don't think a practitioner is currently required on the board, again with current corporate overheads I don't see the benefit of adding director positions that will be unlikely to possess skills and experience associated with the company's current pressing issues. They are appointing an internal clinical advisory board, who will provide any clinical advice that may be required by the executive team, members consisting of current clinical JVPs. I think this initiative would suffice in improving clinical representation and communication. A practitioner on the board in the future may be beneficial when operations improve.

I personally don't have an issue with Mike, I have no personal knowledge of the current issues between Mike and the board. I do believe that calling an EGM was not in the best interest of the company, particularly when an alternative was offered by the board to avoid the EGM. In this I believe Mike has failed in his duties as a director to act in the best interest of the company. I have also come to believe that it is untenable to have Mike remain on the board given his general reputation within the industry, with his presence adversely impacting any future M&A activity and recruitment.

There are a number of prominent figures in the industry who have substantial platforms that they use to convey negative messages about Mike. Regardless as to my opinion of these communications I think it is not in the best interest of the company to retain Mike on the board for these reasons. Confidence needs to be restored in the company and board, the past 12 months with Mike at the helm could only be described as disastrous for shareholders (I certainly don't blame Mike for all the issues, and think many issues were out of his control).

However perception is reality for many, and the perception within the industry is that Mike is responsible. He certainly should be accountable for the company performance, and I think he did the right thing stepping down as CEO. I now think it is appropriate for him to step down from the board. My name is Jon Hamilton and I am one of the holders who have sought the removal of Mike and David Herlihy. I would be happy to personally discuss these issues with any holders, I will provide my personal number if you'd like to message me.

For background I am not a practitioner, my wife is. We sold two practice into the group, one in it's entirety the other as a JVP. I expect we would be described as one of the 'good' practices. We had 10% annual growth in revenue prior to the sale. I will not discuss current performance of the practice from a JVP perspective, I have no additional knowledge in respect to company's cashflow position. I will not claim to be an expert here, I am a concerned shareholder who is happy to talk to other shareholders.

Subject to HotCopper's terms and conditions, I request that this post is not republished in any part in any other media without my prior consent.

Regards,

Jon