Quite a good post.
And I agree about the stage we're at with Polaris and companies.
But please when I give fair praise, don't slam everything that I say down in return. At least acknowledge where I make concessions. I've never said I'm bearish on ADO.
I'm cautiously optimistic about ADO, regardless of the Boardroom antics, because of the incredible technology. Always have been.
But a headkicking mentality that says you have to agree with everything that's said on a certain topic is not good discussion. It's fair to mention the dangers of groupthink.
No. I don't think continual instability is good. I'm concerned at losing people like AS, for financial accountability. At losing someone with battery expertise like SE.
Certainly I want to keep the key scientist, Joe Maeji happy. He should have a place on the Board.
I'm concerned that RM might seek to gain a seat on the Board again. The combination of him, GC and MS might be enough to control it. Based on past behaviour, that's a risk as they show no signs of learning from the past. They just want to revisit it.
But. It could be balanced by a Chairman and CEO who are professional and objective enough to maintain proper standards despite mateship links forged previously. I've foreshadowed how this might work, as mateship only goes so far.
We have seen that in the case of AS who was mates with GC, ...clearly there were limits. GC felt betrayed? This is about what's in the best interests of shareholders, not hurt feelings.
You say that nobody's indispensible, but that's not an absolute. You talk in absolutes, whereas I talk in the relative world.
Please begin to at least stop representing my views as only one sided, or continually negative. I'm concerned about risk vs reward. How that plays out is very nuanced indeed. Thanks.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
