Hi Clam:
<...Kev, why don't you think SEBL bought you guys? ...>
Not for lack of trying on Tom's part. As I understand, we took a look at their proposal, and decided that it would not be the best long term direction for Clarify, our customers, or our shareholders. It is also my understanding, based on rumors, that SEBL wanted us first. Quite naturally, we are a much better company (:-> remember the reptilian 'In Cold Blood'). But that may also have had something to do with the timing of our respective stocks becoming more 'value-oriented' (how's that for spin?)
Some reasons are:
1) Product integration. I will not whack a dead parrot here; see previous posts for MHO on this topic.
2) Upgrade. Even with integrated products, upgrade would be horrendous (as it will with SEBL/SCOP). Expect much dissatisfaction and associated wringing of hands in the both the SEBL and particularily SCOP customer base.
3) Culture. Each company has a unique culture. I am not criticizing SEBL's; they can come in at 6am and wear neckties to bed if they that's their formula for success. But differences in cultures lead to partisanship and politics. Regardless as to how this is postured, it is a take-over and not a merger. Expect employee dissatisfaction on both sides of the fence, and the resulting turn over (I hear rumors that it is already happening big time at SCOP; anyone with real poop on this?)
4) Shareholder value. No company is better positioned to supply customers with complete service-oriented solutions than CLFY. VNTV is closer than SCOP was, but we have unique advantages in field service, contract administration, etc. We believe that we can give a better gain to our shareholders independently.
What CLFY needs now is more of a focus on marketing our story and products aggressively, which is a prime reason to bring Tony Zingale on as CEO.
Good luck. |
