What!?So if the contracts were a problem then ASX would have...

What!?

So if the contracts were a problem then ASX would have demanded they form part of the scope of works by CU - plain fact is they didn't, so its very odd behavior for an entity with a hard-on for finding dirt not too.

Big Kev also had the opportunity to integrate them into the quasi review he attempted to backdoor outside the agreed scope - if that behavior isn't reprehensible then none is, although some on here might grab the poster boy tag before he, unless or course they are one and the same!

So what was the point of the exercise, at the insistence of ASX, if not to turn over the paddy and find the flies? An exercise it futility!

What nonsense that a company would then broaden the scope of an activity that is sponsored and defined by the market operator, to satisfy vested interests outside of the operators own scope. What bunch of morons would do that - that's the function of a market operator. Not just any market operating ecosystem, one that is dictatorial and suppressive - yet they did not insist. ISX is regulated on the basis of rules defined by the market operator, not the MO + who ever turns up on the side lines to shovel cr@p.

It would be like the Melbourne Storm playing the Rabbits and the Rabbits fans suggesting they have a say in how the referee applies the rules - what nonsense.

There is zero implication of wrong doing in the report, other than minor infractions which will be dealt with on the basis of total evidence against ISX and disproportionate action taken by ASX.