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: Nittany Lion who wrote (8719)	6/9/1998 8:46:00 AM
From: T.K. Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10368

Gary: I agree that suggesting the South Carolina situation has been favorably resolved is jumping the gun a tad. To the best of my knowledge that decision is still pending. I have always thought the Supreme Court case would be decided in our favor, but I wouldn't go so far as to say, "South Carolina favorably resolved". I consider the political challenged to be favorably resolved. No changes to the video poker industry came from this year's legislative session and even if Gov. Beasley calls a special session, it is highly unlikely it would result in any new video poker legislation. The leader of the anti-industry faction, Senator Ryberg, has publicly stated he will not support new taxes so I don't believe there would be any activity on that issue. Given the fact that votes on the bill to ban the industry never even got a simple majority, there is no reason to believe Beasley would be any more successful in a special session. Regarding the data from the annual meeting posted on AB&G's website, I find it encouraging that cost savings derived from Director's and Officer's compensation reductions is nearly equal to costs saved from reduction of Manager's and Other Employee's salaries. At least they didn't obtain these savings solely on the backs of the lowest level employees. That would have been a big mistake because such a move would almost guarantee reduced morale, commitment, and productivity by those folks. I think the rank-and-file will bite the bullet only if management does the same. I would sure like to know specifics of Director/Officer cost savings and reductions gained from cuts in Consultant costs. I presume Wilson and Mims took substantial cuts. I don't know how you can achieve a $500,000 savings here without it but I would sure like to see it in print. I also presume Gaines Berland, Newport Capital, and/or Financial Broker Relations have been reduced or eliminated as part of that $475,000 savings but I would like to see this in print as well. I trust such specifics will be spelled out when the transcript of the Q&A session from the annual meeting and full responses to our Memorandum (see post #8491) are provided as promised in John Orton's post #8701. TKA