"It was alluded to at the SHM that " this situation " would be corrected shortly, that being RG's employment status."

Of course they did that - but the question is, why didn't they do it BEFORE the SHM? It would have been much more professionell to let a PERMANENT CEO present all that stuff and not an interim one.

IMHO they could have changed it anytime: from what we know, there is nothing new TODAY what hasn't been known yesterday.

And maybe the nine months period for the Interim/Permant change was chosen by intention? Maybe it was the maximum time, they expected the re-validation process to take? (Ok, this again was a very red coloured phrase...;-)).

As always: We can't change anything, we are just spectators - glty