I'm not so sure about a draft document at Telstra, a more likely...

I'm not so sure about a draft document at Telstra, a more likely scenario is the following:

One Friday evening in early March two Telstra executives wander into a popular watering hole in Bourke Street. While enjoying a refreshing ale on a balmy Melbourne evening, one says to the other,
"Geez, the market hasn't taken well to our lacklustre results, our share price is now below $5.00. What gives? And look at Vita, those stores we hived off to them are booming, I wouldn't mind clawing some of those stores back to shore up our declining profits!"
Unbeknown to them, a journalist from Fairfax's Collins Street office is listening in while sipping on a rum and coke.

I find it's always worth rechecking what we confidently do know in these circumstances.
1. TLS cannot sell as well as VTG can sell.
2. TLS cannot run stores as efficiently as VTG.
(This is why TLS appointed VTG as licensee)
3. VTG is a low margin business, with NPAT margins of single mid-digits. TLS are not foregoing much retail margin when outsourcing the running of the stores.
4. TLS are better placed using VTG's strength in retail by incentivising them to maximize sales of the Telstra brand/products/services (which seems to be exactly what they are doing).

So what's changed?