maybe they meant 10th dec 2013?, page-7

RB,

OK, so now the 10th Dec has turned into 10th Jan...I guess for these guys, 1 month later than promised is a result. Of course that assumes there will be something by 10th Jan.

If/when they don't meet this deadline (announced by RB ONLY), then we should just assume that the source was poor and this will be another promise evaporated with no detail as to why. No doubt, RB, you'll have a good reason as to why it is NOT the board's fault....it never is.

And I still wonder why we've not heard about the great success of the first run, which was supposed to be completed 3 weeks ago. Not a word.

History suggests we don't know because they have failed to meet their own deadline. I guess we know why they rarely put actual dates on anything.