I actually believe we would need an "Erin Brockovich" in most...

I actually believe we would need an "Erin Brockovich" in most public companies in order to breach such bad habits directors are getting used to get away with, just because standing in their way would be too much effort.

They want you to get accustomed to the idea that the company is now in a miserable situation and because we are brought to believe we are on our knees we would accept anything proposed to be able to trade again and have a way out of this.

The reality is instead quite the opposite. We have never been in a better situation! Our debt is laughable compared to most other companies in the stock market. Yet those companies trade at several multiples of their value, while we are probably the only company trading at a value lower than book value.

Now, let's break down the debts of the company to have a better understanding of our position. I will source my data from the announcement dated 26 March 2019, in which SF1 responds to ASX queries. In specific I will address response to query number 4, which relates to the financial position. The company states the following in relation to their financial situation:

1. About $1.5 Million of debt relates to creditors of Robo 3D. This debt will not be carried forward on SF1 shoulders, as per announcement from 6 June 2019 (Placement and Company Update), which explains how assets of Robo 3D will be sold and the proceeds distributed to creditors of Robo 3D.
2. About $250,000 owed to directors and advisors. The Company has in principle standstill arrangements until sufficient working capital is available. This is therefore a debt that can be carried forward.
3. About $1M owed to Tony Grist (indirectly through businesses he has control over). Considering the announcement was dated March, the actual debt now amounts to circa $1.3M, as per last announcement. In any case, as you can see reading through the announcement dated 4 December 2017, the loan is not convertible into shares to avoid shareholders to be diluted.

So.....I'm now left scratching my head and wondering, what debts do we really have to pay with such urgency? From the above analysis seems to me that just Tony Grist has a loan term expiring on 31 July. But, wait a minute! This loan cannot be converted into shares (but they are trying to propose it), and in case the company does not stump up the money at the end of term on 31 July, guess what? The loan is secured against assets of Robo, which means Tony can claim his money from the sale of Robo assets.

At this point I need some help to understand what debts are they really talking about here? Also, now that the part of the business (Robo) loss making has been wound up, we are likely to be in a cashflow positive position. Hey, wait a minute!! Are they maybe (but just maybe) trying to take control of the company now that money start finally to flow and after all the long support given by retail shareholders?