I think Tony quit because of the pressure he was receiving...

I think Tony quit because of the pressure he was receiving regarding the share price. Under his tenure, the price saw no improvement. Tony did two capital raises at 3.5 cents, all new holders now being underwater. There is no doubt some pretty angry institutions out there who would definitely have an axe to grind with Tony. I think through his lack of public market experience that for every positive improvement Tony made on the operations he made a mistake on reporting, investor relations and governance. Tony is one of those guys who believes that he can focus on the business alone and the share price will take care of itself. For a company with very chequered credibility, you can not do that! FOD was a public relations nightmare when he joined and it remains that way today. You have to communicate and demonstrate the undertakings that the business is doing above and beyond what it has done historically. I would apply Occams Razor in regards to Tony's resignation; the simplest explanation is probably the right one, the share price.

Additionally, who is to say that Tony was responsible for implementing and executing the operational improvements? Could it be possible that Nick Stoikos and Steven Cail were the real change agents? I think that is a very fair possibility.

I think one thing is for certain. Steven Cail needs to do things differently! Lucky for him he has the failures of the last three CEO's to learn from. I would hope that Steven looks at the best in class Australian listed food manufacturing businesses and takes a leaf out of their book in regards to reporting, investor relations and governance. Given what has recently happened at FOD, the new CEO needs to provide his own game plan on how he intends to manage FOD into the future.