Keep the conversation going people. A good question from this...

Keep the conversation going people. A good question from this becomes "who was responsible for setting the charge out rates?" Obviously such a person has it wrong and that's not what one would expect of a Board Member. Revenue for revenues sake is not always the best policy, and as a long term strategy never is. So did the current Board endorse it? Did the requisitioners endorse it? How long were the Board aware of the poor margins before the half yearly?

The decision to write off all the surveying goodwill interests me. Since some of the contracts have a long running time, is there not goodwill attached? The alternative seems to me they are priced so skinilly that there is no profit in them. That's not a future that is pleasant to visualise, yet the main focus seems to be on cost reduction which suggests the possibility of improving margins by increasing charge out fees etc is at the very least quite limited. They do mention seeking improved margins through more high tech. work but one wonders if the on going work with contracts such as the new Sydney airport and some of the rail contracts, are set in stone.

Unravelling how we will net (after all costs) 17% next year is something worth pursuing. How would the two groups ensure this? If we take on more debt, pay tax etc, are looking at further acquisitions especially with generous performance rights/shares etc attached that dilute current shareholders stakes, then an EBITDA of 17% isn't going to cut it for me.