Lack of transparency if they had already been in talks at...

Lack of transparency if they had already been in talks at raising 4mil at 2.2c, well below inherent value of ECS. If there is such strong demand to get in, I’m sure they’d have been able to raise at a premium. These interested parties want in on ECS, not the other way around.

I am not happy diluting my holdings further, I understand that they want expansion, although is it worth watering down long term holders who are already bleeding… So that new money can get in at all time lows?

We already have cash, positive cash flow and funding facilities available. Organic growth is already taking place at an acceptable and manageable rate. If the Bells raise is true, why and how is ECS unable to privately fund this, they have plenty of collateral to borrow against and future cash flows… It honestly doesn’t make sense to me.

This really gives off the impression of ‘helping a mate out/helping a mate get rich’ type of scheme. Money talks and seems that our board has disregarded those already deep in the red to allow some snakes (family money) to come in and shovel from the bottom up.

I’m going to need some serious justification to hold trust in our board, or see some seriously solid plans as to how this is going to return value to those who have been riding this out. Can’t wait for there to be free attached options so that the new money can further capitalise from genuine holders who have been supporting ECS for a while.

No issues with being positive, we have a positive company. But I’d be blind to not have skepticism and criticism.