Class action under investigation!, page-92

Hi Davi

I have a bit different view. Not because I am a holder... afr intentionally used terms around revenues not in std practice for saas companies to show figures lower than actual (boyds weekend article from afr). I have had a look through boyds articles and he doesn't usually used these revenue terms himself but chose to this time. Why? To make something look worse than it is.

AFR not waiting to get comment back from NA Williams and advising na williams failed to comment but never following that up. That reeks of a dirty rat to me... good reporting would at some point include what these customers had to say to AFR or advise the market that na williams is still not commenting. This says to me na williams did come back to afr and afr has intentionally failed to disclose those comments to the public for whatever reason. I am highly confident that if na williams was still not commenting then the AFR would be stating that in their articles to try to insinuate the veracity of the na williams contract. Same goes for yum, toast, and amazon.

At this point in the game had none of these companies got back to afr they would be using that to further discredit gsw. But instead they keep harping on about fantastic furniture and fruit box who are very small in comparison to the companies I have listed.

Smh haven't gone to this degree. Nor has the Australian or the Herald.

AFR have also referenced several times opinions from downrampers/ shorters on the hotcopper forum and using that as a likely speculation... are you kidding me??

Add to that they are quoting unnamed fund managers who are shorting the stock....

Could it get any worse for AFR?