Hello Scott,
I don't generally post anything but perceptions by the vast majority (IMO), my opinions which I generally label as such, and in the past, many facts, positive and negative. I don't understand how opinions can be inaccurate...maybe I forgot to label a couple as such.
>>"I was curious about a couple of statements here and wanted to see if you could clarify them. (Just want to be sure about the accuracy ...)"<<
Coming from the guy who generally throws around statements like "released early next year", when the press releases clearly state otherwise (simple example, I'm not wasting my time rereading all your posts), and the guy where everything is fine and well (typical Novell attitude) until asked about the most serious issues, which from my perception you just kinda dance around, seems your credibility could be questioned as well as mine. Only difference, I believe you honestly think you're helping, in many cases you are, showing you're belief in the company and offering education on their products. On the other hand I don't think you always paint a clear picture of reality. I have no interest here other than getting back into this stock if and when something looks like it may happen, and to make sure the turn-around success story is not blown out of proportion, cause at this point, based on revenues and the stock price, no turnaround has occurred yet, and from what it sounds, will not next quarter.
>>Can someone post the official list of BOD and their roles? I thought
that I had read that there had been a significant change of roles,
officially, along with BOD titles. I thought that Eric *is* is charge
and that John Young had stepped back. Just curious about the exact,
legal details.<<
Legal-shmegal. Neither you or anyone at Novell would explain what a Vice-chairman was, and neither you or anyone at Novell has divulged as of yet when John Young's consultant charge was reduced from 10K a week, and what it was reduced too. IMO, this board all sit directly behind John Young...Eric Schmidt has no control when it comes to a difference of opinion. I think you know that. I believe Eric Schmidt was used for his name...to hold the stock price up a little longer. If you were to check, I think you'll find John Young had promised to retire when the new CEO came on board. He couldn't get the guy he wanted (at least two known offers before Schmidt) and I believe saw the opportunity to collect the 10K a week a while longer. We should be able to determine something from the annual report. In any case, you can post all the names, titles, and legal opinions you want, but when it comes to any kind of power struggle, the winner is clear...the old timers on the board, headed up by John Young. Do you disagree with this?
>>I'm somewhat at a loss to understand this statement. I'm not sure that I understand what you are suggesting. As a shareholder I want Novell to make money. If a customer is using v3.11, they have not continued to upgrade their product and stay current. If they are not upgrading, then they paid us at one time for an operating system, which consists of code written almost 10 years ago. Do you understand the cost to Novell to support these old versions? That's why we innovate and re-write code and offer new versions.<<
>>Are you suggesting free maintenance forever? If not, then you are
suggesting that we should offer an upgrade path for them ... and we
have. That's v3.2. If you want us to give this to them for free, then
you do want free maintenance forever ... and as a shareholder I'm not
sure that I agree with you.<<
Of course I'm not suggesting free maintenance. I don't believe it to be in Novell's best interest to force the issue. Maybe Novell will have turnaround by 2000, but I'll bet most organizations make they're decisions long before than. I'll bet many have already. Based on the difference in mindshare, especially amongst the little guys, I'll bet Novell loses most of them. Seems smarter to charge nominally for an upgrade good for a year, maybe two, (based on Novell's optimists a year should be more than enough to turn that mindshare around), and save the customer, rather than losing them to MSFT as I believe you will. I'd be curious to hear where Novell ends up with Vinod's company.
>>I have a couple of old DOS machines lying around ... do you think that Microsoft should give me a Year 2000 upgrade for these? I'm not holding my breath ...<<
Absolutely not, but Novell is not in MSFT's position.
>>Which ones? I want to address this with the people in charge.<<
"Novell's new head of marketing, John Slitz, was specifically planning things differently for 1998, with more attention being paid to reaching the decision makers reading financial and trade journals rather then lifestyle publications, he said. At the same time, Novell would be reducing its participation in events such as exhibitions and trade shows to "do fewer things but better," Ehrlich said. "
"Events such as Novell Brainshare - which Ehrlich was attending in Beijing when he spoke to Newsbytes - would continue, but its participation in the likes of Comdex would be cut back. The latter particularly since it was very expensive and visitors had a notoriously low attention span, he said.<<
Go for it Scott. Certainly a new approach. You might want to read the entire link from EKS above. Novell has certainly had it's share of professional speakers.
Message 2988970
>>I know that you seem frustrated, but do you really think this is an
accurate representation of what is happening? You know that we are
losing the leases on the buildings in San Jose.<<
It was my understanding Novell terminated these leases but I could be wrong. Very few details of these construction plans have been released that I'm aware of. If you can obtain the plans including completion dates of all phases of construction and financing information I'd appreciate it. I'd also appreciate knowing how much of all this new space Novell will actually occupy, and whats being done with the remainder. Seems Novell just cut 20% of it's work force, with rumors being more to come.
>>And you know that we own property in the Bay Area. Could you please propose how to more properly deal with the issue of where the San Jose employees should work? Are you suggesting that we rent new space? Commit to new leases? Continue to hold property, but pay someone else for space? Please elaborate. I will pursue this for you.<<
No I believe it makes sense to build a campus in San Jose. The unanswered question is could it be accomplished cheaper. Remember Novell is a struggling company (although they really like to pretend they're not). EKS had suggested way upthread that this is high rent district. Novell could make quite a profit on this property, and purchase cheaper land if I remember EKS's posts correclty.
>>As for the Utah campus, we are not building a new campus. We are closing the Orem campus and adding two new buildings (to the 6 that already exist) at the Provo campus. So this is a consolidation, not expansion. And as a shareholder of a software development company, I
feel much better when development groups are brought closer together.<<
And what's going to happen to the Orem campus? Is it being sold to enhance shareholder value, or some other plan. If other, what is it, and how will it benefit shareholders? I agree the developers should be brought together. I believe Novell should bite the bullet and move out of UTAH all together. It dosen't take a business major to understand that a struggling Novell shouldn't be maintaining main locations in two different states. This defies logic IMO. I would think the best solution would be to close up and sell out of UTAH all together. Give the key employee's incentive to relocate, and replace the rest. It could be done over a period of time to minimize chaos. Maybe Novell has figured out some way to accomplish all this construction profitably, but the details are either vague or non-existant.
>>I'm not sure where Eric "burned" people ... I thought that he has stated over and over again about down and flat quarters. An analyst that I spoke with recently indicated that "News or no news doesn't matter ... accurate news is what counts." He felt upbeat. I'm not sure where Eric has been so far off ... but I'm probably wrong.<<
Scott, c'mon. You dance with the best of em. I don't remember specific numbers, but seems to be that right after Eric Schmidt started, he stuck his neck out with and earnings warning for Q1 '97 I believe it was. Seems to me they missed by a mile...ok, but the guy was new. Then again on Q3 an earnings warning was issued by the good doctor, and he missed by a mile again. Seems to me on one of the quarters a revised earnings warning was issued and that was missed, I could be wrong about that though. If this isn't misleading shareholders I don't know what is. Also left the impression that he had no idea which end was up. I think we all expected that by Q3 he'd be smart enough to beat his earnings warning. It also seems to me that products are being delayed from his dates of assurance. Although this is common in the software industry, it seems to me that there is not much the doctor has been correct about yet, other than flat to down sales. Seems we never got the marketing plans he talked about either.
I don't believe we've heard any sales projections for later in '98. What are projected MOAB, BorderManager etc, etc sales. These projections probably don't exist, because no-one knows. We appear to be punting with our fingers crossed that MOAB will convince a lot of folks. This is an unknown at this point. Novell still needs to show they know how to market the best products on the market. My observations suggest to me that little progress has been made on this front yet. Maybe we're just holding out?
>>I guess that we'll see. I do understand the history since my orginal
purchases and options were in 1986. I've held them through all of this. Over the last several years my retirement was cut drastically short and I'm not happy about it either ... but I feel that some of your comments are unclear, or not quite accurate. Maybe I'm a fool, but I see things changing ...<<
And I appreciate that Scott, but you've seen things changing for quite a while now. Back at least three CEO's if I remember correctly. Things always change...but will it make the difference this time? I'd like to think so to, but I also like to think we keep honest about Novell's problems so as not to suck in new investors on the fantastic potential turnaround candidate that many folks over the last few years have lost much money on, when in fact, no turnaround is apparent yet.
Unlike someone upthread, I feel the battle is directly between Novell and MSFT. I highly doubt MSFT will lose the battle. Novell will be around a while yet, maybe forever in some form or another, but IMO, Novell has wasted so much time that they will continue to lose ground to MSFT, as every other MSFT competitor does. Maybe MSFT will be split up badly enough to buy Novell a little more time. Novell dosen't have a great track record of using borrowed time wisely though.
sf |
