@nihilismThanks for the post.
"
Wow getting really nasty in here."
I certainly hope that was not directed at my posts. And I also think that
@Neil1959 (you tagged him as well) was not being nasty either. Maybe you were referring to other posts?
"...
expenditure isn't an issue if youre income is high enough." (sic)
Well, that's a very general statement with some basis in fact. However, studying the CGB accounts quickly reveals that income is so low when compared to costs that it is really not worth referring to in the manner that you have - I don't think? If they had income from the activities that they have been promoting over the years they wouldn't need to have the hand out again - would they? How much more of the above do they expect shareholders to fund without any returns?
"
Can you point to your concerns on that part of the equation, and if so, how well do they inter-relate with Neil's point about farm performance from Australia in general over the last two years?"
I have made several posts re expenditure and related party loans. Income is basically non-existent, so I am unsure what you are asking here? Suffice to note that when the
accumulated losses (HY Dec 2019) stand at a figure that exceeds $35,000,000.00 (+35 million dollars) - I really do not see how anyone can sustain an argument that seeks to balance income with expenditure. The point is mute in my view.
Sales for HY to Dec 2019 were
$673,365 (minus R&D grant)Cost of Goods Sold for HY to Dec 2019 were
$544,574Research Cost for HY to Dec 2019
$1,065,246Directors Fees for HY to Dec 2019
$337,000Other Expenses for HY to Dec 2019
$145,833Traveling Expenses for HY to Dec 2019
$124,215Finance Cost for HY to Dec 2019
$1,811,145The consolidated loss for the half- year ended 31 December 2019 was (
$5,485,248) And some posters want to talk about rain charts and "growing conditions"!
Can I point to my concerns you ask? The above and more can be found here;
https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/clients/cannglobal/headline.aspx?headlineid=6970254Enough said on that topic.
"...
but with scaled back crop outcomes, this is likely significantly linked to the growing conditions. Do you disagree with this statement?"
Disagree or agree ... the crop outcomes and growing conditions matter very little to me ... my argument is based on the fact that the expenditure does not, in my view, reflect a priority on business growth, market share or product development. What's the point of chattering about 'growing conditions' if funds are being placed into research costs, travel expenses and loans? Wheat farmers don't contribute directly to CSIRO! Wheat farmers don't loan money. Wheat farmers don't ...
I think the chat about hemp and crops etc. is misplaced particularly when one examines the expenditure profile combined with the fact that they want more cash from holders for purposes that I think remain unclear.
"...
it might just be worth trying to steer this issue productively"
I think the issue is expenditure and surely the fact that they want more cash from holders is evidence enough of their current plight!
"... rather than both sitting on opposites sides poking fun."
I have little interest in "poking fun". However, I also think, "
we need money to make money" is worthy of a giggle.
And while
@Neil1959 responded to my post - he did not provide an answer to my question regarding his views on the merits, or otherwise, of this latest "issue. And Neil I will respond to your earlier reply in greater detail - just a bit pushed for time today.
"...
and are you using misdirection to steer people away, like you have done with my post?"
Not 'misdirection' but most certainly redirection.
