You made the comment. That you moderated you own post shows...

You made the comment. That you moderated you own post shows exactly how confident you are in your fanciful procurement process.

What's your proof a Purchase Order has been placed for long lead time items.
They are not spending from petty cash buying office supplies.

What you are suggesting will have their Auditor likely providing an "Adverse Opinion" on SYA financials simply because of the potential for gross (as in $amounts - those Capex items are not cheap) mistatement since it would be shown just as you state that "bending rules, pushing the envelope, and circumventing standard procedure" has occured.

An "adverse opinion" from the company's auditior is RARE for a publicly listed company. More likely is the company's internal control procedures would be flagged as adverse and the audit opinion would be "Qualified" - if there is any doubt about any specific process or transaction - and "bending rules, pushing the envelope, and circumventing standard procedure" would surely earn that opinion.

As an investor the only audit opinion I want to see is "Unqualified" - not to say that's perfect as AA gave Enron an Unqualified opinion which was later shown to be far from the truth or accurate and we all know how that ended up. You being in the USA should know all about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002).

This is stupid to discuss further. I'm done.

Why not just ask at the EGM and get the response on the public record then.