sydney morning herald article, page-21

My problem with the issue of the options is about the removal of any performance hurdles should the director decide to retire, be terminated, take over happen etc. They would then immediately be entitled to _all_ the proposed options. It seems AS wishes to get his retirement package all sewn up and ready to go, or it may be that they are all trying to make the most of any takeover (should one happen of course), at the expense of other longstanding shareholders.

Plus the money grab by the founding shareholders (AS included) when they realised that it would take longer than 5 years to produce the profit they agreed to originally (haven't seen the agreement clause 11 in question but that's the company's position). I would prefer to see that tested in court. I suspect however that once again points to a takeover as the options would immediately vest should a change of ownership occur. It may also be that AS will take his bat and ball should a revised agreement not be achieved.

All seems very "opportunistic" to me.