Yeah I fully agree with you, Bonanza module reviews will survive - and there is every possibility the result could be great. The only thing that bothers me is how they handle affairs with shareholders - I would rather rather they be forthcoming and ask for more time from the get go than let on it will only take ten days, two weeks - then disappear off the radar RE: module reviews. To me that's a big middle finger to the shareholders, they don't value our time, and by constantly failing to meet deadlines (these reviews arnt the first) they set false expectations.
When I see justification from others that the process is increasingly complex and delays are expected - this should be accounted for in timelines; for example - scientific and medical journals contains peer reviews, RCTs and so on from medical groups all around the world, and not to mention further review by the publisher yet they still manage to be released on time. I'm sure you can look at your own industries and timelines and see how leeway is included for delays. It's dissapointing to think a dual listed company struggles with that. Again it's not just in this instant, there's a myriad of examples from the past which demonstrates this lack of foresight and premature announcements made by the company. I'd rather they do it once and do it right, it reflects poorly on management - essentially don't f**k around for a lack of a better term.
Their intent might be good, only time will tell, one thing for certain is their approach in addressing shareholders could be improved.
