"The reluctance to remove the valuation for worthless options is...

"The reluctance to remove the valuation for worthless options is indicative"

You're obviously having problems wrapping your head around this one. Lets see if we can break it down into little bite-sized chunks for you.

What we're discussing is the appropriateness and value of the MD remuneration package awarded by the remuneration committee. In my opinion, (and clearly also in the opinion of other posters) it was too generous by any reasonable benchmark.

I have previously posted tables, with data sourced from the Azure financial statements and ARs, which compare the AZS MD's remuneration package to a wide range of industry-peers. As you will remember, Mr Rovira's package is at, or near to, the very top of the peer group while the share price performance of the company consistently fared at the lower end.

As I said before, the remuneration package offers Tony the best of both worlds. He receives an extraordinarily generous base-salary AND great options package. He earns a very generous salary even if the share price collapses. He's also nicely positioned to cash-in should the stock experience share price growth.

The fact Tony never seems to succeed in achieving share price targets doesn't mean the remuneration package he was awarded retrospectively becomes fair! It just means he failed to achieve the share price milestones.

This is why I felt (as a shareholder) that the matter really needs to be referred to an independent remuneration expert for comparison to industry peers.

Lets stop re-hashing this though. If you're happy with TR's package, so am I! Would you perhaps even be interested in topping it up a little at the upcoming AGM?? (in recognition of the good work he did prepping Sara Alicia for sale ). I know Carmie would!