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: Market Tracker who wrote (8631)	5/23/1998 12:45:00 AM
From: FeringiTrd	Respond to of 10368

Re: State to Count Video-Poker Pots; Page F-21 NOTE 12 (Annual Report) "Approximately 228 of the companies 755 video gaming machines are non-compliant with the state of South Carolinas requirement that video gaming machines be able to connect on-line with the state in 1999. The Company will have to retrofit these machines to be compliant, or replace or discontinue theses machines. The Company does not expect the cost of retrofitting or discontinuance to be material, although the cost of replacing these machines with compliant machines could be material." Over 30% of the video machines currently owned by the company are not currently in compliance with the laws to be effective Jan 1, 1999. I would feel much better if they had just stated that the cost would not be material to retrofit these machines. Although it cost little to remove the machines from their current locations (Bubba & a truck, no offense meant to anyone named Bubba, especially if he has a gun rack in his truck), I would consider the loss of revenue to be material if the machines were to not be replaced. If I recall correctly (going from a hazy memory here), the cost of machines is approximately 12k each (suspect I'm on the low side), x 228 machines = $ 2,736,000. Yup, that's material all right. I guess the 2.736 mill $ question is; (drum-roll please)................................. Are these machines that don't meet he new laws specs, going to find a new home in Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, or elsewhere (perhaps in the logging camps in Brazil, hooked up to a Honda generator; sounds like an excellent job for the Mr. Wilson, someone has to keep the generators fueled)? Dave

To: Market Tracker who wrote (8631)	5/23/1998 7:25:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen	Respond to of 10368

MT: Thanks for the info. Again, I presume "lock-up" means Mims and Harrison can't sell any shares at all until the three years are up. Regarding the contract to hook all SC VGMs to Dept. of Revenue, the contract award was challenged by one of the losing bidders. Note the following: "STATE REPORT - News from around South Carolina Published Friday, November 14, 1997, in The State. Objection could delay video poker monitoring Installation of a video poker monitoring system could be delayed after a company objected that the state had awarded the contract to a Nevada firm. Last month, the state selected IGDreamport for a seven-year, $4.2 million contract to install a network to dollars gambled in the state's 30,000 video poker machines. The system is supposed to be set up by 1999. However, NAI Corp. of Columbia asked Wednesday that it be given the contract instead. The company cites a 1994 temporary restraining order that it says prohibits Reno, Nev.-based International Game Technology from selling any equipment in South Carolina to someone other than a company owned by poker magnate Fred Collins. IGDreamport is a joint venture between IGT and Dreamport. The order was filed in an Horry County case. Procurement officials will first consider the appeal, which could later be heard by a state panel. I have no idea what the status of this contract challenge is at the moment. It all became irrelevant with the political and legal efforts to ban the industry entirely. Now that video poker has survived the legislative challenge, if they also survive the legal challenge, this will be an issue worth revisiting. In any case, the state will not be able to enforce this hook-up requirement until this appeal is resolved. If the appeal drags on for any length of time, the state will be forced to move back the original Jan., 1999 deadline. TKA