Maybe it was poorly executed, no argument, but could it equally be because we were fresh out of bargaining power when the terms were being agreed?
We must have had projections of future earnings from this or that deal which was supposedly imminent. The forecasting of future earnings had to have been impressive enough to convince Diasource we could fund it in the future with our whiz bang science (and it is whiz bang no doubt about that much), or Diasource would never have agreed to the deal.
It wasn't a hostile takeover, right? But they must have given themselves plenty of wriggle room, and started to lose faith as it became obvious we couldn't self fund the deal in the poorly executed part. Whether it was obvious at the point when Diasource convinced GC to step aside from the CEO position is an interesting question. But they must have chafed at being told what to do from a remote outpost, from their perspective, of a struggling company, when they were at least cash flow positive and we kept showing no signs of it.
The reality is we weren't there and don't know the details and exact sequence of events, BUT you have to ask yourself why events transpired as they did. I'm saying what I think is most likely and why.
When you look back forgetting hard luck stories and 'we wuz robbed' scenarios and get back to basics on the business end, of what each party should reasonably have expected, it tends to focus the mind a bit more sharply. IMO.
People tell me as an investor, that I should have been wiser and more nimble in the shark tank of traders and shorters. Well, you could say that about ADO in the world of business.... but at least I'm not bitter... many seem to be.
For this reason I am backing the Chairman's approach in the presentation. And the recommendation for stability. I'm also hoping for an outbreak of goodwill.
ADO Price at posting:
1.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
