Pewal - I totally agree with you, except the bit about the posts...

Pewal - I totally agree with you, except the bit about the posts by 'Mick and Eck'.

I have said it before - and I will say it again - nobody tells management to provide those timelines and targets. It is all their own work. If they want credibility, they need to deliver according to their pronouncements - at least most of the time. If that is not a reasonable expectation, why even bother having ASX announcements at all.

As for Mick's post, he is contradicting himself as usual. First he says he 'has given up worrying about timelines', then shows that he is still (rightly) worrying about it by concluding with 'I just wish they wouldn't put anticipated times...etc'.

Exactly Mick! Deliver as indicated - or don't indicate.

Eck's post was similarly meaningless. What does it really matter if timelines are 'loose' or tight - one day, 10-15 days, soon, this month, next quarter, next year or whatever.

When you say "before Dec" should have read "Q4 2012 or Q1 2013 for resource upgrades at Lance and Karoo" what is the difference? When 31 March 2013 comes - and no update - exactly the same frustration results. It's irrelevant how LONG the time timelines are. The only relevant thing is whether the timelines - however long - are met.

The Karoo initial jorc was originally due in May 2011. So we now know that at incredibly 'loose' timeline for the jorc of 'the end of next year (i.e. end of 2012) would have turned out a fail (and would have, as well, been entirely unacceptable to investors).

Looseness is, in other words, entirely irrelevant.

It's simple - meet your targets - or get better at setting them - or don't make them.