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: T.K. Allen who wrote (7505)	2/20/1998 3:11:00 PM
From: jimmy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

Great Summary, T.K. From what I have read, it sounds like Beasley has 25 for sure and possibly 26. So, he needs 3 or 4 more to defeat a filibuster. Earlier, I took issue with Mims characterization of the situation because I felt he left the impression that the votes were not there to pass a ban. Clearly, the votes are there to ban, and after all, a filibuster is sort of like a game of chicken: who's gonna bail first. If Beasley is sufficiently committed, can't he effectively wait out the filibusters for days, or weeks? And, in the meantime nothing gets done and, with each day, the "public" outcry for action on this and other seemingly more important matters becomes louder, and louder, and louder. Can't you just hear the self-serving moral rhetoric from the anti-gaming lobby? What happens to the filibustering senators' resolve then?

To: T.K. Allen who wrote (7505)	2/20/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: Max Fletcher	Respond to of 10368

Thanks Todd for all your work from a long-time lurker. Your hunch may be largely correct. In any case, I think BNGO's stock may not do a whole lot until May, and at that time will be heavily influenced by the outcome of the SC debates. If, as mgmt believes, the outcome turns in VGM's favor, we should be off to the races again. I'll maintain my position in the meantime, since I believe we are undervalued at these levels and that we will prevail in the VGM dispute. Back to lurking...Max

To: T.K. Allen who wrote (7505)	2/22/1998 7:52:00 PM
From: Nittany Lion	Respond to of 10368

TK, I realize that your theory regarding the mgmt.tug-of-war is purely speculation but I find it very plausible: Wilson, on the other hand, was not willing to take that big a risk. He would prefer to wait for the political decision in South Carolina. In the meantime, Wilson explores possible bingo hall acquisitions as a fall back position in case VGMs get banned in South Carolina. Given the uncertain profitability of bingo halls (especially as compared to VGMs) demonstrated in 1997, I think Wilson is playing for time on the South Carolina situation. If SC keeps VGMs, I think AB&G will jump into that action in a big way. However, if true, in at least a small way that again brings into question the credibility of management. How can you publicly state over and over that your business plan is to consolidate the 30000 Bingo Hall market when you intend to concentrate on VGM's if they are not banned? I fear that the truth is they are still not sure what they want to do, hence the constant contradictions. Maybe this is common with such a small Co. and somewhat virgin management team, but it still makes me nervous. The thing that still gnaws at my gut is the sudden announcement that there were only 14 halls when a few days before the call the website was changed to read 16 from 18. I got the impression listening to the call that these closings did not just happen - why change the info.if it's not accurate or complete? I just don't understand. I like Ed's idea of posting the location of all the halls and keeping it constantly up to date. I certainly don't expect them to check with us every time they make a decision, but I would also hope that they not purposely keep important info. from us either. I'm still willing to wait this out because I believe the potential is there but I certainly don't blame those who have elected to cash out. Gary