report, page-80

clacko,

i agree there is no benefit in a share consolidation, however, companies do them. Why? Well in this instance, many investors do not like to purchase shares when they are trading at such a low level. A 0.1c change in % terms is simply too great.

In addition, once a consolidation is structured, not as many shares are required to be issued in order to raise the funds.

Sometimes it promotes more turnover.

Again, it is not ideal, and investors invariably lose out - particularly if the company has been very poor. However, management often cant see a way out and tend to look at almost anything to see whether it would lead to some sort of improvement in the price and interest in the company.

What I have been saying for some time is that if the technology is so great, but it has only been delays in construction which has caused the share price to be placed in this precarious position, why not fix the problem? The finger should be pointed squarely at MT and his crew who have been sitting on this 'great' technology, but obviously do not have the skill to take it to the next level. This happens. His cheerleaders on this forum are huge supporters of MT. MT may have done a great job in the development phase, but I think he should have moved out (or remained simply a non-exec director) and brought in a team that could drive it and get the job done. I think that huge salary prevented him from accepting this. The result may well have been very different if he stood aside 6 or 7 years ago.