Please carefully consider what I'm saying, instead of assuming...

Please carefully consider what I'm saying, instead of assuming you know.

JH was a company director and didn't have control over strategy until Chairman. At that point he apparently sought expert advice, from consultants so it took time for that to occur. This is crucial to appreciate.

A good leader gets the limits of his or her own understanding and knows when and where to seek expert advice. This is far, far preferable to hubris.

Next you're conflating holdings with ability and leadership. Surely the fact that nobody is clamouring for GC to take the controls, let alone RM tells you that's not a reliable indicator to have holdings. Those two make a right mess of it strategically, as far as I can see. The situation was incredibly messy by the time Bouris was pushed and Hurrel found himself Chairman.

Nobody wants GC or RM back in charge. For good reason.

Next, change for it's own sake is not worthwhile. We need a Chairman with nous about how to negotiate on the international stage.

I couldn't recall whether it was your good self or another erstwhile poster who claimed that nobody was indispensible - not even Joe Maeji - and that we needed a strategy for succession. Somebody even called for a clean sweep of the Board. I am uninterested in trawling back to discover precisely who said it. But it was said.

Even accepting you need a succession strategy on IP, Joe Maeji is surely first among equals. He has had foresight and insight as well as the smarts to be thorough, way more than the average. By your own admission.

So it's extremely wise to listen to what Joe Maeji has to say, understand why he is less dispensible than some imagine, and that what had to say at the AGM was a thorough endorsement of AS and the strategy being implemented.

At no point did I say JH was responsible for Joe Maeji's wise and utterly commendable strategies on IP development. You're misconstruing me again.

But he had the nous to implement a wider strategy* that was completely simpatico with it. Joe Maeji caught up on the wisdom of the strategy being implemented by Alan Studley, although he resisted at first, but then he got it. Joe acknowledged all this at the last AGM, and he was not a happy camper at the proceedings.

Your comments only underscore the fact that JH as Chairman had the smarts to seek expert strategic advice when he needed it, and incorporated it internally when he already had it (Joe Maeji's IP thoroughness).

What a shame you weren't apparently listening to Joe M, nor apparently have bothered to speak to JH in a calm and considered way. Too late for the latter now, and I understand it's very hard to do this when you're losing money, and when you've listened to one side. But we should be bigger than that. And we should be able to accommodate a counter argument without misconstruing it.

On Future Strategy and Progress:
Progress will happen, and it's happening according to the Chairman's strategy and it's also happening in the diagnostics space (slowly and less exciting however).

But we need someone with the right smarts to take this forward. The CEO is AFAIK inexperienced in high level international negotiation and strategy.

I do not want our IP to be sold off! We need JVs and upfront payments.

To counter this lack we need an agile, experienced and smart Chairman with international experience.

This company, and shareholders have suffered enough in the way of careless strategies and wishful thinking. IMO.

Looking at the reality of a JV we have well over a billion shares on issue, and a saggy shareprice. And a history of board instability. This makes our bargaining position weaker.

So we really need a strong Board and a clear vision, free of preconceptions and personal vendattas.

A consolidation seems inevitable, and the people shaking the cage need to understand what's in their own best interests. IMO.

I'm still hoping the science is so sound, that the disadvantages we have can be managed. But a new Chairman with no international negotiating experience, or experience in IP related areas and a load of hubris won't be good, even if he or she is an Australian-based Chair.

I hope you can read my points and accept that I see things differently and understand how I reached my conclusions. I don't ask you to agree, but please don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

Thanks in advance.