CEO response to Shareholders letter, page-94

Sector lead, I was questioning the money management over the years and the remarkable change in policy after the IPO.
In 2012, they only made $6.5m in cashflow, borrowed $3m and paid $7m in divs. They only had $8m in cash left.
In 2013 with cash growing rapidly, they didn't need to borrow, but still borrowed $3m (there is a clear mistake in the accounting in that borrowings increased by $3m but financial liabilities only went up by $1.7m. Did GT audit the 2013 accounts? They did a terrible job if they did!!)
They paid no Div in 2013 despite a huge increase in cash. Why hold all that cash $27m from memory AND hold $9m debt??
2014 fresh from prospectus promising % of profit as Divs, but reneged on. WHY?

In 2012 they were prepared to borrow to fund part of the div.
In 2014 a div promised, they paid off debt, still have $30m cash but can't pay a div?? It doesn't add up after what they did in 2012.

Now there is talk of stopping/reducing growth to around 70 stores, yet the 2013 result of many more stores showed great increase in profit and cashflow, without seeming to cost a lot of money. Were the refurbishments from 2014 funds part of a promise to get them on board in late 2012 or early 2013, so that a fast growing business could be shown prior to the IPO? If that is the case then the real problem was the IPO was vastly overpriced, and the Chinese with escrowed shares knew it.
If IPO overpriced by tricking ASX punters into thinking double digit growth when really the number of stores now and $80m revenue is it.

The real question is why NOT pay a dividend if you have no debt and can fund future growth from cashflow as well as pay a dividend when you have $30m in the bank?? Especially so after the huge div in 2012 AND the planned growth for 2013.

The marked difference from 2012 policy to 2014 after an IPO don't make sense, when the prospectus stated divs and business as usual, which it certainly hasn't been.