SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : The Children's Beverage Group (TCBG)

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Due Diligence who wrote (1980)10/14/1998 1:40:00 AM
From: KSully  Read Replies (1) of 2452
 
Calvary,

If anything, the co-sponsorship of Team Cheever has been a nice side show as we await the start up to operations. A good way to keep the TCBG name in public view and ironically - a good way to "support" the stock price. Not by promoting the stock, but by serving as a reminder that TCBG is infact a company. Just not a company that has entered into the production stage.

The IRL is not why I purchased this stock. I purchased this stock on the belief that a stand up pouch package with a built in straw system just might prove a success in the marketplace. While others await production news, I await patent news. If a patent is awarded, then TCBG really has a exclusive package in addition to being the only other concern to manufacturer the stand up pouch.

I recall encountering a statement that it takes 12 to 18 months to secure a patent. October 17, if I'm not mistaken, marks 12 months in regards to the patent process. IMO, we will recieve word on patents pending by the end of the year (ie: 15 months or so). A patent award will not generate revenues. A patent award, however, secures an exclusive package that if proven successful in the marketplace. Well, an eventual success proposition for us shareholders as well. But who can wait out as long as April 1999? (ie: 18 months to the patent process).

Let me insert another date - December 21, 1998. December 21, 1998 is the first day of winter. If we are to believe that an agreement has been entered into with Wal-Mart where Wal-Mart plans to indroduce its Great Value branded 10% juices this "fall". Well, I will at least extend TCBG investment matters to WINTER! December 21, 1998.

Since you have brought attention to the co-sponsorship of Team Cheever - let me ask you a question. Would Wal-Mart have entered into a co-sponsorship arrangement with TCBG if not having entered into a manufacturing agreement of some kind with TCBG? Does not the co-sponsorship of Team Cheever lend greater credibility to eventual production as opposed to comments by Unser where you have raised the issue of no production?

How can any of us be concerned about TCBG missing the deadline with Wal-Mart when we do not know what this dead line might be? All we know is "FALL 1998". As such, all we know is that December 21 is the deadline.

In a like manner, you have inserted dollar amounts to the co-sponsorship of Team Cheever as to imply that TCBG has squandered a million if not millions. Like the production agreement with Wal-Mart, the co-sponsorship of Team Cheever has been undisclosed. We do not know the numbers of this sponsorship. We do not know who paid for this and who paid for that. We do not even know why it was agreed upon to place TCBG on the car as opposed to Great Value and or Wal-Mart. The fact that it was TCBG, well - think about it. Is TCBG kissing Wal-Marts behind and or is Wal-Mart kissing TCBG's behind? Was this an enticer to secure an exclusive to the package? If so, why not accept cash instead? What if cash was a part of the deal and this co-sponsorship thing just tossed in? What if this cash was sufficient enough to make an unsolicited offer for Juicy Juice?

When information lacks, us posters can twist matters any way we want too. You took this co-sponsorship and turned it against TCBG. I have taken this co-sponsorship and turned it in favor of TCBG. We, of course, are just presenting our biased opinions. To say unbiased is to deny the fact that we have a vested interest. One may not own shares at present. One can, however, place a price limit order on the buy side and then try to entice/pursuade/scare other shareholders (via these message boards) to sell at the market in hope that one's very low buy order is executed.

Do us all a favor. Look at the article where Unser made his comments. Find out who the reporter/sports writer is and then phone the LA Times to discuss TCBG/Unser matters with him/her. Maybe Unser revealed more about TCBG than was depicted in the article. Maybe not. But until and unless persons engage is some D&D - we will never have any answers and or greater information to work with.

KSully
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext