on one hand we have those that are prepared to hold on and...

on one hand we have those that are prepared to hold on and absorb or accept the clear disrespect of time by management to shareholder thru its obscure communications, vesting their interest moreso in the grant outcomes and collectifying the monash issue with such. I can see some credence in that point of view, altho it amplifies their risk exposure if they are holders.

on the other hand there are those that are presently observing dilutions on market that are contrary to previous purportions of contract with monash re: may 2013 lump sums covering/dismissing the need for ongoing appendix 3b to the other debt party. those amounts at a nice 2cent issue of stock to monash would have kept the business in a greater fundamental position then it is presently in.

the point I see of the shares to be issued to monash by may 2013 at 2cent imo holds more weight then the former. hence why majority of posters on hc at this time are in this category.

imo both sides have their valid arguments. but I believe management should not have put their shareholders in such a split position of choosing such views in the first instance, when adequate,, timely respectful public comms would have been the order of the day surely?

a comment was made to market by mgmt 1st march about greyness of possible change of terms to the may deadline agreement with monash, the language used in the march ann was content based with alot of interesting substance, but very poor imo on its TIME based references or purportions of time.

In hindsight, come may 30th 2013, even if such was not resolved in theory or agreement by end of may 2013, mgmt owed the market a report of sorts on the subject material. and they still do. I think the main reason why the share has drifted a tad lower is due to management stretching the time of the holders.

things would be much more rosy: as at may 30th 2013, if another announcement was forthcoming that contained perhaps even more terms of greyness but conjunctively addressed/clarified/dismissed/reset/repositioned the previous mentioned timeline puportions of funds that were stated to be received by may 2013.


my post above is a bit complex but I think that's the nuts and bolts of it.