More press for SPL, page-32

Yes I find the dissemination of information by this company rather ordinary. It would be nice to feel a bit more informed, in order to make decent investment decisions. On a whole I still don't have a problem with the way the clinical side of the company is being run.
As to 10yrs at the helm of a company not being healthy, I partially agree. If a CEO is running a healthy stable company whose business does not change much over its life, then having the same CEO for that long is probably a good thing. After all stability is a nice thing to have when it comes to management. On the other hand, with a company like SPL we have a company that is fast approaching a likely change in the type of business we have. We will of course continue to be a company engaged in clinical research for years/decades to come, however we are now heading into a time when deals need to be done, contacts in the industry are essential, and marketing becomes a bigger part of the CEO'S role. As such, our current CEO may not be the best person to take us forward. While replacing the CEO just when a company starts to show signs of becoming a revenue generating business may seem harsh, she has been well rewarded for her leadership over the last 10 years. So while I don't have a problem with the way she has run the business, I would not be disappointed if they brought in someone with more experience in biotech companies at this stage of the game. I am thinking probably someone from Europe or the US with a great relationship with a number of big pharma companies.