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 : Sungold Gaming International (SGGNF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rogue Warrior who wrote (3076)	1/26/1999 10:52:00 PM
From: Bruce Morgan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5164

I couldn't agree more. Yesterday I posted the "The Silence is Deafening". Two days and we have not even had a response as to whether 3002 was from GLB or not. Someone in Management must know or the Silence begs the answer. I have been in this stock for over two years silently waiting for some news. I for one am not willing to be silent any longer. SUNGOLD it is time to say something!! Either 3002 is legit(from GLB) or it is not. I guess I already have the answer, just don't want to believe it.

To: Rogue Warrior who wrote (3076)	1/26/1999 11:48:00 PM
From: David Carruthers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5164

Hi Rogue, I hope this post doesn't come back to haunt me, but IMO, the last thing the company should do is publicly comment on or acknowledge an anonymous message floating around in cyber-space, no matter how troubling the "content" of the "message". If what appeared in 3002 arrived at SGGNF's corp. HQ on the paperwork of a law firm, well then that would be different. But to give public credibility to SI postings by having the company address them just seems the wrong approach. I think it would be amateurish and unprofessional and it would look like a panicked, knee-jerk response. Sure it would make us all feel good IN THE SHORT TERM to have a public comment, but in the LONG RUN it would work against us. I called the co. yesterday, and was told in no uncertain terms that the contract between SGGNF and the band is solid and for real. For the time being, I'll take the word of the company over a weasly-worded SI posting like 3002. Take care, David PS. Having said all that, if the co. does respond, it won't be the end of the world. I would just prefer that it didnt.

To: Rogue Warrior who wrote (3076)	1/26/1999 11:49:00 PM
From: terry peacock	Respond to of 5164

WITHOUT PREJUDICE Rather interesting.............. 1) As I understand it the Lawyer for the Band entered into the meeting of Native Tribes who had already received official Federal recognition to attempt to include the Gun Lake Band into the compact process when they had not even received their official charter. The Lawyer, as I understand it, was asked to leave the meeting as it was quite inappropriate for him to even consider being there. 2) The Band's Lawyer apparently began to initiate some negotiations for a Class II casino license prior to accreditation, in a neighborhood close to the Detroit Airport, in an area called Romulos. Apparently, this activity sparked a response from Detroit and a formal letter was filed at the last minute making objection to the recognition of the Gun Lake Charter. This action did not seem to be very wise as there is now a 60 day period of consideration in effect. 3) It appears that other casino companies may not be very interested in making a big investment in a casino project that may well be involved in a long and contracted legal entanglement which may result in judicially derived long term settlements of undetermined proportions. 4) The first casino in Detroit is apparently on the fast track to open in July of this year. I wonder how much that works out to per day in terms of delays and what the real cost of delaying will work out to be. 5) I believe that since the shareholders of this stock have held on for this long supporting both Company and Band Members, that they would want a quick end to this impasse, ink a fair deal and have everyone making money or support a potentially extracted legal halt to movement forward until everyone comes to their senses and makes it win-win. 6) Given the apparent reactions cited in examples numbers one and two, I wonder if taking these types of directions is wise. Given the other considerations, it appears that it would be prudent to turn a lose-lose situation into a win-win one where everyone can profit as quickly as possible. 7) Since the Gun Lake Band has decided to become a participating member of this thread, I would like to invite Mr. Bill Church to speak openly to shareholders about any of the current matters in question. It is not just Sungold's problem, the shareholders behind the Company have invested in years of support for the band cumulating in the pending (now an extra 60 days) recognition of such. As Mr. Church was once on the Board of Directors addressing shareholders of the direction and nature of their investment vis-a-vis the Gun lake Casino, he is now invited to re-address us.