Another note below that I overlooked on yesterdays post.
To: V$gas.Com (26890 )
From: The Swordsman Tuesday, Apr 27 1999 9:05AM ET
Reply # of 26987
Marty, would be an asset to the board, in my opinion, but trying to intimidate the company to remove the loan stipulation just shows how classless we are.
Classless? Classless??
What was done to the shareholders was classless
Tell us all if you please, if this action by RG was so full of class and self sacrifice, and the company needed the money so badly, then why, just why didn't the company sell shares at .45 to .55 cents a share directly into the float? WHY!!!
It would have produced 300% the return and with one third the dilutive effect.
Instead the shareholders have been shown real class by having Mr. Gordon first wash all those shares through himself for an personal gain, thus profiteering on the company and using the company's dire financial condition, a situation he alone was responsible for, as an excuse to be so gracious in relending the proceeds for a sweetheart deal that will cause yet further dilution that borders on humongous.
Give it a break, whoever you are. Your continued defense of Mr. Gordon's actions continues to speak volumes about who you may actually be.
SC
Simple math tells us that if only one third the number of shares were in fact sold into the float to raise the necessary capital, the share price today would be considerably, I mean let's face it really really considerably higher than where it is today, not to mention the potential consideration or maybe even an already done deal regards more legitimate financing from less treacherous sources. with 10,000,000 shares fewer on the market we would have easily broken through the $0.65 barrier and we'd probably be over a dollar or much more by now. His actions are indefensible.
Meanwhile, I still haven't gotten your answer to the very serious question that I posed in that post. It was not rhetorical.
Why did Mr. Gordon first run the shares through his bank account for a whopping personal financial gain before lending the proceeds back to the company at such usurious and egregious rates?
After all he had just lost the company's shareholders more than $25,000,000 in equity, more than $1 per share at the time, on sales of less than $3,000,000 in two years. This latest plan, really J Hwang's plan wasn't even a glimmer on the horizon at the time of the share hijacking. So please don't tell us he was rewarding himself for performance.
Since you have appointed yourself Mr. Gordon's defender-of-actions, please enlighten us to the factual as opposed to the rhetorical rational for this apparent continued and ongoing activity.
Unless of course you bring us news this morning that Mr. Gordon has made his loan agreement to the company null & void.
Anxiously awaiting your answer and straining to hold these leashes....
SC |
