Tim, That was my opinion also. But, we never were told if the terms of that aggreement changed. With Frank's posting recently, coupled with the recent release pertaining to board members, there has been a glaring absence of any mention of DCI. All, I am suggesting, is that it is prudent to find out. Wouldn't you agree?
I have no vested interest in DCI, long or short, so I have nothing to benefit either way. I was recently sent an option agreement by Joe Murphy, of which I have no intention of exercising.
My money is on Franklin, they have controlled the purse strings from the start, this is their deal, and no matter what the outcome, the fact remains, they hold claim to FNET, until the time any terms of any such contract are fullfilled.
To date, I am not aware of any contractual performance, or the acceptance of any said monies having been brought forward to meet those contractual considerations. That would lead me to believe, that DCI has not earned their share (40% as it has been reported), not to mention any higher amount, 50% as has been hinted, on these boards.
Unfortunately, these public forums serve to promote the unfounded. The facts are, that investments and contracts, should be based on a clear understanding of such, conjecture or assumptions, have no part in either.
My only purpose of raising any doubt, is to alert those that are invested in DCI, that the old contract expired. If there is an extension to DCI's contract (without revision), or if a new contract has transpired, then it is of my opinion, that Joe Murphy, has an obligation, and it is his fiduciary duty to reveal such terms, as they exist today.
I want to make perfectly clear, that this is not to say that a contract doesn't exist. I am not in any way implying, inferring, or otherwise making any judgements on DCI as an investment. Only questioning the the terms of any contract, as it exists, at present.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Raleigh |
