Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : Littlefield Corporation (LTFD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SE who wrote (7429)	2/17/1998 10:55:00 PM
From: jimmy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10368

OK, here's my two cents on today's conference call. I won't bother to repeat what others have stated. (1) I thought the most important moment of the call was Kecseg's question about the management situation minus Corky Logue and "Carl". Those of us that have been following AB&G since '96 may recall how Logue's appointment was hailed as a turning point for AB&G. Wilson did not come close to answering this question well. A major negative, I believe. (2) Mims sort of misrepresented the VGM vote situation in the Senate. The fact is: the votes are there to ban video poker. A filibuster is all that stands in the way of a ban. Beasley, according to the last count I heard, is still 4 votes shy of breaking that filibuster, but what if Beasley is able to convince 4 senators to allow the vote to proceed. Remember, those senators could still vote in favor of video poker - allowing them to on the one hand, win some favor with the anti gaming crowd (for allowing the vote to proceed), and still maintain the support of many of their pro gaming constituents with a convincing: "hey, I voted for gaming". (3) We now had 3 different explanations for the press release fiasco. Which version do you believe? (4) OK ,so AB&G is earning more with 14 centers than with 20 (or 22), but that's only because they made some bad deals. Come on... why can't they just say "we screwed up". And if they bought out some competing bingo centers with the intent to just shut them down, why didn't they report it as such from the get go. Why string us along - having us believe we are accumulating bingo halls.

To: SE who wrote (7429)	2/17/1998 11:04:00 PM
From: FeringiTrd	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10368

Overall, I was less than impressed with the CC, all of those soft balls lobed over the plate, and management couldn't hit even one out of the park, it was more like a fat man trying to leg one out to first base, and coming up wheezing. No-one challenged Wilson on his intentions, no-one asked what management was willing to do to create a sense of trust of management, after all of the previous misleading statements ie; didn't foresee calling the warrants within the foreseeable future, the promise to keep the website updated once a month, his reported attempt to sell his shares (but was unable too at present), the bungling of the statements regarding just who was in charge. No-one challenged the closing of such a high percentage of halls, which shows inept DD (save the rose bush fertilizer about them being in close proximity to other halls, only some of them were in that camp). The high point of the CC for me was the inclusion of Howard Rosencrans, of HDB, he was an early IOM analyst, and the fact that he bothered to take time to examine BNGO tells me that I'm not totally wacked out. I just hope that he wasn't holding during the downdraft, but was looking for a purchase point. Dave