"it is well known that the company was run poorly under his...

"it is well known that the company was run poorly under his watch, hence the new board (who in my view remain highly competent) were handed a reclamation project with the two basic choices. completely can the program or try to see if it actually works in a methodical manner.the first would have been just as (or more) unpopular as the failed trial result has been."

Werble - I had already down a significant sum of money from the EMA debacle under the previous Board. I only then (stupidly in hindsight), invested another significant sum in FTT, because of the trial. If the trial had not occurred I would not have invested and I would have been able to put my my daughter through a good school and avoid having to sell our home. You are completely and utterly wrong to say the first option would have been unpopular - the company was down the gurgler at that stage. No-one would have given a cr@p. It would have confirmed what we all knew about the previous Board. 

The second option though was something else altogether - it was effectively a vote of confidence by the new Board that TIS actually had something of value and we investors assumed that the new Board had done all the due diligence they could possibly do to determine that was the case.