I have read the report again and again, and it's quite worrying...

I have read the report again and again, and it's quite worrying to me personally. It made me rethink about what happened with the power struggle that saw Peter Wall resigned. Lindsay was already the CEO, and he sort of promoted himself to a newly made title of MD with almost doubled the salary (250k to 450k), which is as confusing as what he's been up to recently and in the past 3 years. This doesn't make much sense because CEO is already the highest title there is to someone running the company (MD is generally for banks and big places where there is sufficient scale of business and a clear hierarchical structure, not for a small company - and in both cases of a large or small company, an MD is still smaller than a CEO, if both exist in the same company). There is no explanation (as usual) as to what responsibilities he assumes more to deserve that raise. The term of the contract is 4 years (duration until retirement?) and yet another 12m performance rights for him that they have not decided on details.

What's perhaps even more worrying is that the list of risks is now double the length of what it used to be and is written in greater detail. Surprisingly a warning for investors and the need to consult their financial adviser is now also included (perhaps received too many angry phone calls from investors?, or perhaps just a warning for what might/could come?, or both?).

Many details are overdue on the actual progress of this project (IDC loan, construction), and that will require courage and honesty from the management team, especially Lindsay, which I haven't seen much.