You are brave man to take the CEO's word (your paragraph 10)....

You are brave man to take the CEO's word (your paragraph 10). The CEO has been at EOS for nearly 25 years with the last 7 as MD of the public company. Racked up losses of nearly A$80 million and during his watch and oversight saw the success of securing the initial CROWS contract and then saw the US Army terminate them for a number of reasons detailed in the GAO report.

In good times Recon was there partner in arms - joined at the hip - but in bad times it was all Recon's fault. I dont buy this - EOS was a major sub-contractor providing between 30-40% of the total contract value including alot of the "smart" technology.

What financial standing does any any party need who is tendering for potentially a billion doolar contract?. There is no formula however enough cash resources and assets to give the US Army confidence that if anything went wrong the contractor had suffiecnet resources to remedy the problem. At present the auditors tell us they have a going concern problem as there is a potential liability on a telescope contract from $4m. Imagine if the US Army asked for an assurity bond for say 10 or 20% of the contract value - on a billion dollar contract that's $100 million or more (EOS's current shareholders funds of $5m)

The writer wishes to confirm again that he has had a past association with EOS. If any contribuant to this discussion also has a present ot past association with EOS (including broker) they should disclose this.