good news or bad news, page-16

First of all, yes I have held the stock and yes it has been unprofitable.
With respect to the Tuna licences, it comes back to my comment that the Stehrs are hunters, not farmers. Whilst they are protecting their interests, they really have no place as executive directors on the board of what should be a pure aquaculture company. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that if they are committed to and believe aquaculture is the way of the future, they would not hedge their bets, their shareholders cannot.
My interest however is not solely focused on CSS but on Aquaculture in Australia as a whole.
Watching stocks fail and investors lose because they have been sold the wrong story distresses me. The fact is that the aquaculture industry is a huge industry overseas, consider Cermaq which farms over 330,000 tonnes of Salmon and Ocean Trout. Australia consumes approximately 220,000 tonnes of fish a year. That is to say, one company (Norwegian by the way) produces more fish than Australia consumes each year.
Tassal produces less than 10,000 tonnes per annum and has aspirations of producing 20,000 tonnes. That's great, it aspires to be and will always be a domestic minnow.
I suspect that if the CSS money raised had been used to begin a true venture in the first instance with real focus and potential e.g. solely on Kingfish (which is a 180,000 tonne p.a. industry in Japan) not a pipe dream like Tuna, CSS would be a viable, sustainable business that could then allocate funding towards R&D of new species.
It had every chance and has not achieved or delivered. This is a fact that has not been delivered to investors or shareholders.