I'm all for it, but that was a question posed after an investor...

I'm all for it, but that was a question posed after an investor presentation which we have discussed on here.

Okay. Consider that question dropped - you and I can discuss it elsewhere if you want to.

A comment I would like to make where other readers can see it though is that one of the things about being a shareholder is that deals are done on our behalf that we can't see the details of.

A couple of things that can happen that shareholders don't see or know about are - a) approaches to deal or partner that don't reach a deal being done or MOU stage. So there is nothing reportable but the prospective partners in asking management questions can essentially discover things like - no they can't have a deal about X because X is promised or committed elsewhere. b) management can be approached with takeover offers that can be very exploratory - they might even get low ball offers that are more than exploratory - they could have nuisance value if they need to be addressed by management as being sort of credible looking enough - so that can be a pretty substantial source of management distraction if they can't proceed on other business because they have to consider a takeover.

As you know (I think you and I have discussed this) Fuji (potentially) stalking CYP for a cheap takeover is a particular longish standing concern of mine. But I don't want to distract from the purpose of this thread with what could appear to be a conspiracy theory.

Feel free to ask again, and again, then again. That makes it three questions that could have been asked instead that won't be answered because we conveniently ran out of time.

Right. So I won't. And like politicians - we can't make company officers answer questions if they are determined to obfuscate - but questions given in writing and in advance are harder to obfuscate over. It doesn't look good in front of an audience of shareholders that care about their funds if a simple straightforeward question like for instance my suggested question number 1 which comes from the annual report isn't answered "Were cash bonuses awarded for KPI's on milestones in the MEND trial?" I'd suggest. I can't see them dodging that one - in a combined general meeting and video conference meeting if its asked in writing and shareholders want an answer. - Some time will be left for answers from the floor and that one is short.

Yes Dorothy Dixers - questions that waste time are things that can happen. So its useful to have short questions than are endorsed as being important.

If the answer to a question on the list is out there, I think it would make sense to refer to it (with a link).

Yep what you did was fine. Others can offer links too.

Otherwise you end up with hundreds of (repetitive) questions.

Yep but I think we need a little bit of a brain storming period where suggested questions can be put before we worry about getting too much and repetitive one's - I think some posters aren't that fond of me - they might ignore my posts altogether - but I think holders that don't like me would still want good questions asked - so involvement by folk like yourself can move things along.

Who is then to pick the questions to put forward?

It doesn't have to be me is what I'm saying.

Based on what criteria?

The criteria I suggest is that the questions be ones that if answered will most benefit shareholders in terms of improving the stewardship of their common shareholding funds.

Putting all/too many questions forward, which ones do you think they will select to address in the little time they will allocate to the Q&A?

I'm aware if given a choice the company can cherry pick. I'm aware they might also plant questions that are softballs. But I'm suggesting its not that hard to take a small chance on posing some questions to see if others will support the good ones being asked.

The tough questions that you want them to or the easy ones that have been discussed many times?

You are a good researcher in my opinion and your own posting style is usually to provide evidence for what you claim. We (you and I) can't make others post only thoroughly researched questions though or insist they have links - we have to be a bit organic to get input and to build some consensus I think. There is already a nuisance question being asked by a non holder that's off topic - I'm ignoring it. Perhaps it would be better to report it before its responded to - but I hope Sector isn't opposed to this - I don't see it as against his interests to have good questions asked.

If you want to offer yourself as a nominee to ask the questions, or curate the questions I'm open to that - but I think a good place to start is to generate the questions. If you'd like to coordinate this info gathering that's okay with me too.