Marketing and bullsh!tting to shareholders, it would appear a...

Marketing and bullsh!tting to shareholders, it would appear a fine line in this instance...

to me it appears AJX should have done better in reviewing his credentials before assigning the position. was he given the role through nepotism? mateship? i would like to know how he got the job, who signed off on it etc

at what point, if any, did internal checks determine he might not be suitable/knowledgeable enough for the role? in hindsight, he seemed to be nothing more than an over-exuberant, unqualified sales person ('the' article paints an extremely damning profile!!). i think as shareholders we can expect more from CEO's and high up company officials then what was publicly released and also privately conveyed.

i understand the company regret the NC period. it should not have been allowed to gather momentum the way it did under this person (dare i say people).

i have held on to some shares, although they are essentially worth 2/5ths of not much.
so substantial losses on my behalf. a 5 cent share price is not good enough, and people will post about 'just around the corner', 'on the horizon', but really 5c is pathetic after what we were lead to believe
i am not chasing sympathy but an explanation would be good.

i would also be happy to sign up if anyone believes there are grounds to pursue damages. i guess it means more to people who have lost significantly, particularly given some of the information now coming to light. if the company has nothing to worry about, and removed the problem as soon as they could, then no problem. if not, then maybe some of us sufferers deserve an explanation & could consider compensation...

we can beg to differ. these are my thoughts however