Naxos Resources (NAXOF) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Naxos Resources (NAXOF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (14191)	7/11/1998 11:48:00 AM
From: Carlo	Read Replies (1) of 20681

I agree with the notion of not signing 1/3rd of the company away for J/L. We can still sign a deal that is a "pay for performance" type. Let's say we pay J/L a royalty that comprises a percentage of the profit above manufacturing costs. This is a pretty common way to pay for technology. Of course J/L will demand money up front (perhaps shares), but the ridiculous quantity of 10M shares is too hard to swallow without any performance demonstrated. I strongly doubt, at this juncture, that Campbell advocates giving J/L 10 M shares. The deal, no doubt needs to be renegotiated, and for all we know, that may already be going on. Perhaps we could feel a little more comfortable with Mr Campbell if he would tell us thread people his current stance with regards to J/L payment. I am also concerned that leaving the reigns of this technology development, and or conventional mine development, to an attorney who is embroiled in a personal power struggle is not good for Naxos. On the other hand I am not real interested in giving Jimmy 10 M more shares of voting rights either. I am glad the time constraint on the earlier J/L contract expired. We should pay J/L money as he helps us make money, not before.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next