You're right, we not here to praise our stock into oblivion. But that article really give no new information, and mostly quotes the BMO analyist. Its ridiculous. The are no new facts presented, only a few anonymous, unsubstantiated, general statements that doesn't add up to news or journalism. I'm interested in the implications, I just wish it would have offered more detail and explanations, even if its just opinion.

"...there are suggestions the first shipment of phosphate rock from Townsville could be set back a year to 2011." Suggestions by whom!?!? Where did the author hear this? Is this just the author's opinion? Without a source this doesn't mean anything, doesn't the paper have an editor?!?! I could write an article & say "there are suggestions that Legend is really worth $500 trillion USD."

"A company spokesman said yesterday there was no change to the company's timeframes since its latest release to the market late last year and there were no issues at present that would impact on meeting them." This is a clear factual statement. (that Legend said the quoted statement, not that there is no delay). It has a source.

"...workers at Townsville port have been told of possible delays until 2011." Which workers & who told them about the delays!?!?! How are the workers related to the company? How did the author get this info? The author could have written a great 2 page article on this alone if he say went in the field or undercover and interviewed workers in the field. That would have been a very useful article!

on the rail: "However industry sources suggest that work is subject to customer demand." What sources? Did he contact government officials? how did the author get this information? What does this imply??! Is this the Watergate of Australia, with deepthroat sources? Why can't the author just name the sources or how he got the information.