" I’ve said for some time, something is not making sense so what about this
I remember a post from Mega who said “I can think of a worse strategy than following the money” well as far as I’m aware the board collectively has not sold shares en masse so why not? In the case of Mike Fitzpatrick why watch the share price plummet and lose $. Maybe they know they can’t lose, "
If you were following the $ you would have seen lots going to wages, benefits and administration flowing out the door, no income producing assets and no securing of real income to pay next quarters investment requirements long term nor suitable release of results to see the $ being spent. You would have seen a large sum being spent on a company that simply was dysfunctional which CCE and overpriced IMO that has now been partially excised from CCe without proper explanation. Independent valuation would be interesting and allow holders to see what has gone n.
Since shareholder haven't been informed about stuff all the board would have to be in possession of more information so would be restricted from any transactions ATM. Whole market every shareholder needs to be fully informed and I suspect it hasn't been for some time. Many shares have been gifted not purchased with cash so many don't feel same pain as mum and dad shareholders.
"maybe the govt won’t allow a takeover or administration,"
Govt is not a shareholder so has no control
" maybe the govt have invested too much money into a Company that is “supposedly” at the forefront of wave technology."
Govt hasn't invested anything. They have given away taxpayers money in grants with very low hurdles on results and foolishly don't demand a option or shareholding in the company. They rely in theory on getting some $ back long term by some companies beg a sucess and getting extra tax , employment , feel good points and in some cases helping mates etc.
Reality is that many successful technology developed in Australia is later not manufactured in Australia ( no employment) and owned by foreign shareholders and many eventually bought out and technology moved out of Australia so no long term tax benefit.
" JUST MAYBE CCE has worked on projects ( Delemare, Garden Isle etc) that are just too sensitive to allow the govt to either allow a takeover or to collapse, maybe that’s why we are not being told anything, "
That is a very long bow and not realistic. There is nothing that CCE were involved in at GI etc that is massively sensitive but any company involved in onsite defence facilities or supply to such has some extra commitment to regulation, security etc. There is other published knowledge of approx power usage and power sully points etc for most facilities and commo sense says that they will have all major required capacity with independent back up and fallover supply for critical infrastructure.etc MO "its a secret" bullcrap IMO was a further excuse not to release info every shareholder should have had in regards to basic performance and output statistics. When the buoys were removed etc there is no reason stats couldn't be provided IMO.
"time lines are not being, EMC approval seems to be stuck in neutral, JUST MAYBE CCE and the govt need to sort out where to go from here! Lots of maybes......but! "
I don't think the govt is responsible for any of the lack of information or progress at any stage. Govt has set processes and time frames and using a excuse like -" not sure about future tax and research rebates" is just crap. Take the grant, do the work, comply with conditions and I can't think of anything a govt leg would change and can't imagine any would be retrospectively enforced .
Selling ( and I use that term loosley) to a cash poor company , giving them cash and doing so for shares in that poor company - well I guess you get a idea f jut what the business was worth on the real market and how well structured and manages IMO it was concerning I don't think it ever made a single proposed timeline it proposed or financial outcome speculated.
Lack of communication from CCE - well they never did do much communicating IMO unless they wanted what was in your pocket and then I was dubious and proven right about the picture they presented but they surprisingly kept finding new market bunnys to donate - whoops I mean invest.
Somehow CCE survival will only work if they can extract value out of all research knowledge they have and I just hope some of that knowledge , possible patents, IP etc is wanted by other parties to complete of expediate other projects but what CCE needs and has never achieved is a sugar daddy industry player who can warrant and implement a working project and stand by it , guarantee so a government or large energy user participate.
A lot of honest information need to come out and a statement as exactly what todays a modeled projected capital cost , cost/KWH and output at a average site their current research leads them to believe they could install with current design and equipment in next 12 months. If that cost is $1000 a KWH you know where you stand and if it is 10 cents you also know where you stand but goal has to be energy production long term at reasonable cost and reliability. How close are they on any aspect ? That is the benchmark they should be compared to as it would allow comparison to other technology. With reduction in solar cost,wind cost, energy storage innovation , battery technology every year they are chasing a smaller market for energy that they can possibly be competitive in so their innovation need to be quicker than market and have a specific advantage at scale..
Current goings on are irrelevant in bigger picture that requires admissions by CCE of just where they are up to and if they will in any way have a possibke product that the market will want .
