simple clear no nonsense - What have BIG done wrong, page-81

Care to explain how you think BIG operated in Q1-Q3 of CY17, generating ~$30m in cash receipts, if they then fully utilised the sponsorship cap of $20m in Q4 CY17?

If the model was flawed, there would have been no room left in the cap by Q4? There had to be room in the cap to utilise it in Q4, suggesting that the sponsorship facility worked in Q1-Q3 as it is intended to (akin to an alternative, aggressive take on debtor financing).

I'm still surprised that people think this is a zero. If you apply some logic and reverse engineer the reporting of receipts and subsequent cash balance, it is not possible to "create receipts out of thin air" like some are suggesting, because they would've suffocated under their own sponsorship cap long beforehand, if the facility did not work successfully.