C'mon all this defending the same management that time after...

C'mon all this defending the same management that time after time has made public pronouncements that ultimately turned to mud.

If the big shareholders are holding out for a better price wrt to the forthcoming CR then who's responsible for the SP being where they even have a say in it?

Who decided NOT to raise and get the trials under way 2 years ago?
Who decided not to halt and raise as soon as the Fonda approval arrived 2 years late?
Who appears to have spent 2 years doing little to finalise the financing ahead of the approval?
Who now claims that everything that has gone wrong over the last 3 years is because of things out of their control?

So what some might argue were 2 of the naivest announcements yet dropped on the ASX at the most inopportune times were someone else's responsibility?
2 announcements that some might argue destroyed any possibility that the Co. could raise at 70c and get on with the trials?

With all due respect maybe its the HC poster's (TDA?) fault after all wasn't it "him" who both times informed Pete about the "competition" ie the AG and the Apicore "generic" last July. And wasn't it Pete who then went to press so as to keep the "market informed" with diabolical consequences?

(And no TDA I'm not targeting you but if management's not responsible then who is?)

And why the hell did the Co. have to get this publicly available info from a poster on a forum?

Don't they even keep abreast of their own markets?

Is the "surprise" that a "black swan" event of an AG hitting the market within a week of launch the reason for the appalling announcement about it that smashed any hope of getting a CR away in the 50's or 60's or above?

Yet isn't Pete now supposedly quoting a publicly available report about the effect of AG's on generic sales (and how common they are) again provided by a HC poster?

Is this why it was supposed to take 6 months for an approval that took 27 months and yet no-one other than the Co. and its shareholders now appears to have been surprised?

I could list 10 instances where management appear to have clearly been wrong not least being the latest "September" date for the financing that then slipped to Sept/Oct then Early Oct and now apparently is Oct/Nov. Is this why the enrollment is now Dec just in case it becomes Nov/Dec?

While I'm a fan of Pete's and think he gets the science I'm not convinced at all about the oversight of what is in fact a commercial entity ie a publicly listed Company not a research organization.

This co has great science but has frustrated everyone long enough.

And yes I know this is very harsh but this isn't a $2 co or a pissy little research org surviving on govt grants: this is a PUBLIC Company that lays claims to being worth billions in the next few years. Without improvement in the non-science side of the business it will only get there in spite of itself not because of it.

My opinion only.