that’s not my logic at all and it’s a bad analogy.
my point is that if there wasn’t a contract in place (I.e minimum spend of a certain period), which there wasn’t, then it was totally inappropriate and unnecessary to give usage and revenue estimates because it was impossible to arrive at any meaningful number.
the fact that numbers were given suggests to me (and ASIC) that there was a concerted effort to mislead the market.
CBA should have had the balls to explain this to Bane, but Bane also should have known better. Ultimately the buck stops with the office holder.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?