As a cheerleader I think a lot of your comments are well...

As a cheerleader I think a lot of your comments are well reasoned, so don't spoil it now.
Let me say this though just so we can be clear on what's gibberish and what's not.

1. Not all constituents are farmers and not all farmers are crop growers.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statis...rchive:Farm_structure_in_Malta_-_2007_results
Some Farmers may be extremely positive but that means stuff all if they only represent a small proportion of the voters. (All farming categories under 1% of total population) Why would doing research on farmers attitudes on their own vested interests have the slightest impact on what may or may not get passed into legislation?

2. Yes management have had successes in a number of different areas otherwise. I would not be here. In my experience boards don't make announcements which are open to interpretation or make announcements prematurely when not everything has been tied down. The Malta ann is another example of this. You first think its a certainty until you read that actually it still needs to be ratified before becoming legislation.
The issue of shares was really relating to how they are awarded and the dilution with so many awarded for performance or as a bonus to management.

3. Of course they have to announce the VC deal as its material and part of continuous disclosure. The announcement just does not stack up to the reality and yet and again it comes back to point 2 above.

Look, I'm not trying to be negative and I think that these guys are on the right track but they do test my resilience.