notice of agm and explanatory statement, page-89

Hey johhny reb, in reference to your comment on research.

Over the years I have seen some great contributions by posters, that were seemlingly well reasoned and well researched posts, where does it all fall apart?, the forecasts of most top rated posts (all?) in the past have failed to materialise unfortunately.

All hopes are now pinned on the Olympic team bringing home the gold, the past has been, by and by, largely attributed to the failings (?) of the BOD under Glyns leadership.

Two things the company will be dependent on, imo, that the science is indeed breakthru and that IT can be successfully commercialised and in a timely manner, the latter 100% crucial.

That the science is validated, as per by P&G, is a big start in the right direction, that said the consumer must support that assertion by running P&G products of the shelf in conjunction with repeat wand sales (the key component for OBJ) for ever after.

Can P&G guarantee that OBJ tech will be still quite prominent AFTER the honeymoon period, what sale figures do they need to see in 12/18 months time to say that the P&G/OBJ alliance was a roaring success? We can reasonably assume that their base product is already well regarded, though will it absolutely give them the edge, using OBJ tech, over their competitors, technology is always being superseded by something new so there is also that to overcome.

Failure will impact OBJ severely, minor blip for P&G.

Despite the Olympic team now in place, though only early days, not much credence has been given to the fact that the new board is now in place, imo, as evidenced by the dismal sp.

You would thing that IF previous mangerment were indeed ‘remiss’ and the new BOD the ‘cats whiskers’ then there should have been some recognition via sp appreciation!