No revised NOM for the long now adjourned EGM (starting back in...

No revised NOM for the long now adjourned EGM (starting back in Oct16). No new /replacement Prospectus as yet. No investigating accountant's report. Yet, according to H17, this was all to occur before late March. It's now April. Soon, it will be May and before too long, end of the financial year.

ASX market surveillance may very well soon start asking questions, particularly as to why it's taking all too long. But, then again, it seems to be standard mantra. Over in AHF, for instance, they have been talking about a strategic review /update to the market since July. It's now only April.

The Q3 quarterly (for AHF) therefore will be interesting (given TAU's role as a SSS and that it provides the Executive Chair, Secretary, accounting, farm operations oversight, responsible entity costs, etc - have I missed anything here?) in order to see just how much money TAU is either taking out of AHF (through re-charging of common expenses, overheads, head office rental, accounting, secretarial, etc) or us relying upon. After all, TAU is not making a profit in its own right.

In the Q2 CFS for AHF, TAU took out $169,000 in admin costs recovery. A further $149,000 concerned payments to directors and their entities (primarily, to TAU).

In Q1 CFS, payments to directors etc (again, primarily to TAU) was a more pedestrian $27,000.

The Q3 forecast for the period just ended was for $340,000 in corporate and admin costs. It will be very interesting indeed to see how much of these costs are related to TAU (presumably through charging 2017 admin costs upfront)????

This time last year, the corresponding payments made were - $27K in Q1, $27K in Q2, $27K in Q3 and $27K in Q4. So it begs the question of who approved the $169,000 payment (or approved the relevant contracts concerning this) in relation to TAU charging "cost recovery" to AHF?

And what if the $339,000 in costs charged by TAU to AHF in F16 which was well above the $250, 000 rate of F15. Again, who approved these? And what does that put the F17 rate at? - >

Is TAU that reliant on or in need of $ that it is extracting this from a 11% owned entity?

And seems intent on repeating this as part of Q3 judging by the $340,000 admin and corporate cost estimate in Q2 CFS for Q3.

The problem with this type of behaviour is that it soon starts showing up - where is the replacement NOM, investigating accountant's report and replacement prospectus for TAU, and where is the strategic review and direction for AHF? When costs such as these are being charged - to AHF and (in relation to TAU) to TAU itself, results are expected, now, rather than 9 months later in AHF's case and >5 months later in TAU's case.


Then, add to that the $172,000 in F16 interest, the $108,000 in F15 interest and the $75,000+ in F17 interest and it just demonstrates just how reliant on AHF That TAUis and has been. Yet still the results of this reliance have not been demonstrated except in more, never ending charges arising. Interesting, that. And interesting the lack of corporate effort going on in both TAU and in AHF. A bit of an indictment, really.