Shareholders voting against remuneration report and ESP, page-338

Depends what you consider concrete evidence.

My way of looking at it is that there is a asset (to the company) sitting on the balance sheet which is at risk of not being realised because the owners of the liability (directors) are out of money and can't just pay it back.

So the way things stand, if they do nothing, they have to write the asset down on Nov 29 and lose $8.5m. Or extend the deadline and carry it. Neither option is palatable. They clearly chose the pay back option (fact)

Now as a lender you want to see a clean balance sheet, directors putting money on the line (skin in the game) etc etc. So in my view the ESP is actually the best way to do both - get a clean balance sheet and get directors buying in. Those are the facts and they are fairly concrete. Of course the only way to generate enough wealth to pay back those loans is for the SP to be significantly higher than 3c so they can exercise/sell a portion of their holding to pay the company back the $8.5m

To me that is the most likely scenario now and gives AUZ 3 main benefits:
1/ $8.5m cash
2/ clean balance sheet and ESP linked to performance hurdles
3/ Dir skin in the game (they have to put additional money in to convert their options)

So again, I am supportive of the ESP because it paves the way to bigger and better things. Mind you most people will think in very linear terms. Directors rewarding themselves etc etc. But there is more going on behind the scenes than we are privy to and I think the ESP move exposes some of it to us (external investors)

IMO