"On further reading of the note, it appears to say the $185m...

"On further reading of the note, it appears to say the $185m commitments is in respect of "stores". It is uncertain whether this commitment also includes any of the $24m annual warehousing charges commitment.

If the warehousing charges are excluded, the information is not given to compare against is the existing Toll outsourcing (if in fact the $24m relates to the Toll facility), hence broad brush assumption to add to these commitments and compare is invalid."

Yes, which is exactly what I was saying when you first raised the issue of the reduction in lease commitments.

As I think I may have said in an earlier post: SFH appears to be, fundamentally, very cheap.

But there are a lot of moving parts, many travelling in opposing directions (for example, consumer confidence/sentiment headwinds vs internal restructuring benefits).

For mine, an investment in SFH today might pay off if the planets end up aligning for the company at some stage. But because it is difficult (for me, anyway) to envisage with any real clarity what the future performance of the company is likely to be, it is difficult to invest with any degree of conviction at this stage.