Ann: Strategy Overview Postponed, page-107

No. It has always been about pork barrelling. Nothing's changed. Mind you, look at the operational cashflow.

In 1Q17, $171,000 went in ADMIN & CORPORATE. The 2Q17 forward projections at that time were for these to then reduce in Q2 (ie: back to $130,000). They didn't. Instead, they doubled in reality (up 2.5x on estimate) to $340,000. The 3Q17 forward projection then suggested that this would be repeated (ie: @$340,000). It wasn't. Instead, it feel dramatically to $103,000 whilst the 4Q17 projection put this right back up there, at $301,000. Time will very soon tell, but anything's possible with them. Look, for instance, at the following chart where they have applied smoke & mirrors' tactics in trying to create the illusion of controlled /managed ADMIN + CORPORATE costs:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5
0	Period	Admin + Corp	Projected	Variance	Comment
1	1Q17	171,000	-
2	2Q17	340,000	130,000	+210,000
3	3Q17	103,000	340,000	-237,000
4	4Q17		301,000
5	Progress	614,000	771,000
6	Adjustments	301,000	171,000		Add Q1 actual to projected. Q4 projected to actual.
7	Adjusted	915,000	942,000

Then look across at the Directors /Associates' expenses (this is a separate category again to the ADMIN + CORPORATE charges):

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3
0	Period	Payments to Directors /Associates	Payments to Related Entities & Associates
1	1Q17	27,000	-
2	2Q17	149,000	169,000
3	3Q17	115,000	-
4	4Q17	???	????
5	Progress	291,000	169,000

Notice the pattern /the trend, so to speak. Throughout much of time, the regular quarterly payment to directors has been $27,000 which is about right in reference to baseline fees of $30,000 per director, plus $60,000 to the Chairman. Directors' fees however need to be approved by shareholders, at least in terms of there being an aggregate ceiling in place. For these purposes, payments made to executive management who are also board directors do not count in terms of determining the aggregate ceiling.

From November onwards, Jackson ceased as a director. He was not replaced. Yet, the available funding pool /ceiling was not adjusted. Instead, it seems that the funding amounts have skyrocketed. It cannot be because of there being any Jackson exit fee, as he was only a director for ~2 years. Instead, it seems that either the remaining directors have already increased their share of the pie (albeit within the likely approval ceiling), or have in some other way masked payments to associates, etc. Soon, we should know all about this. Indeed, very soon, if not actually sooner than soon.

But, overall, let's look at how some of the figures come together:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5
0	Period	Admin + Corp	Payments to Directors /Associates	Payments to Related Entities & Associates	Total
1	1Q17	171,000	27,000	-	198,000
2	2Q17	340,000	149,000	169,000	658,000
3	3Q17	103,000	115,000	-	218,000
4	YTD (3q)	614,000	291,000	169,000	1,074,0000
5	4Q17	301,000*e	????	????	301,000
6	Total	915,000	291,000	169,000	1,375,000 min
7	4Q proj		115,000*e	169,000*e
8	Total proj	915,000	406,000	338,000	1,559,000 proj
9	Q4 effect	301,000	115,000	169,000	585,000*e

No wonder cash dropped so dramatically during Q2 - at least $658,000 of it was due to payments being made to directors, their entities (including to TAU), and on account of ADMIN + CORP.

Right here, right now, however, the final F17 amounts are likely to come in at a minimum of $1.56 - $1.60+M, not counting the near on $900K P&L expense that was also taken at H17. This puts them on track to consuming >10% of revenue in ADMIN + CORP costs or their equivalents (expensing of options etc still counts when it represents a drag on the P&L).

In essence, that's where all the profit's going - into the coffers of directors and their related /associated /crossover /entities, relatives and the like.

And then there's the mighty "Other" column when it comes to the farm expenses., etc. Perhaps Michael or Nathan would like to explain this. More the point, one usually gets remunerated for making shareholders money, profits and gains, not for losing them. Game - set - and - ?????.