Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I found it (or at least a reference to it, I still can't find the original agreement). Thanks for bringing that up.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919742/000114420406033471/v050060_10q.htm
I don't believe that Rob would have a problem answering me for any personal reasons. I think that he would not be able to answer because doing so would reveal material, non-public info to me.
If you would like to try I would greatly appreciate it. Could you please ask him what happened to the agreement with VPN de Mexico where $5mm would be funded upon initial delivery and why this was not mentioned in the recent JV agreement?
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919742/000114420406033471/v050060_10q.htm
"Upon the acceptance of the initial test area, VPN and the Company intend to proceed with the agreement’s joint venture arrangement, which provides that VPN will pay $5,000,000 to the joint venture for the next stage of implementation, which will call for an installed area of no more than 100 sq. km. The same payment terms will apply whereby VPN will pay a 50% into the joint venture with the balance due at completion and acceptance of this stage. "
Ok. I would accept that as an explanation.
Can you provide a link to the original agreement where it says the $5mm ($2.5/$2.5) will be paid into a JV?
However this explanation raises another issue. If VPN's capital contribution to the JV is going to be $5mm, GTEM must make a proportional contribution pursuant to section 2.3. GTEM's contribution would be approximately $4.8mm. Where is it going to get that cash?
I don't think this is valid though because initial contributions to the JV are supposedly already set according to the "Initial Plan" which makes me believe that these amounts are independent of the $5mm 'agreed' upon earlier.
>>Who says there isn't $2.5 million coming into GTEM's bank account soon?
Who is to say that Lockheed Martin isn't going to buy this company tomorrow (or hasn't already done so today)? Who is to say that martians aren't going to come down and imbue GTEM with alien tech that will allow them to finish the Strat in a week? You have funny reasoning skills Sirius.
Your 4-day leeway period still does not account for a full month after GTEM's delivery of the network in which no news has been heard regarding this promised payment. Also there is no mention of this payment in the new JV agreement, and it seems that GTEM's costs are pretty well covered in the new agreement (see Section 2.3.A). Are you saying that VPN is going to pay an ADDITIONAL $5mm on top of the arrangements in 2.3.A?
So far what I see is that a $5mm receivable promised to shareholders has evaporated.
>>P.S. Why don't you contact IR and ask Bleckman yourself?
Because he wouldn't tell me? That is material and non-public info. I know Blecky likes spoonfeeding investors tantalizing bits, but he wouldn't be stupid enough to tell a random investor "Oh yeah, we got the $2.5mm" without 8-K'ing it.
I have a question.
What happened to the $5mm ($2.5 in advance/$2.5 on delivery+certification) that VPN was going to pay GTEM for build out of a second network upon successful delivery of the first network? So far I see no mention of this anywhere by either company.
Apparently the $5mm part of the agreement was non-binding as well?
>>The strat can be stationed well below 65000 feet and be effective in border control or preventing the spread of wild fires and that is the point.
Actually jfburk, 65,000 ft and higher is a key selling point for the Stratellite. Every foot lower that it goes reduces it's coverage area just based on its visible horizon alone, keep in mind this is not factoring in the extra degrees above the horizon required to avoid most normal obstructions (trees, walls, etc.).
Because the Strat is marketed as a more cost effective (remember 'highest tower in the sky')solution to coverage via land based stations, every sq mile of coverage it loses reduces its attractiveness. The height of 65,000 ft (and nearby altitudes) is important to the success of the strat.
There are many more jewels in the proposal. Frankly I think this is one of the best lines:
2.1.1.5 BHG and its Service and Content Providers
Yahoo and Microsoft are asked to provide the free e-mail service for all signers to the program.
Along with this visionary comment regarding the development of public parks/spaces (note the specifics on what BHG intends to do):
2.3.1.4 Parks and Recreation
Utilizing a wireless network in this sector can bring more people out of their cars and into the parks. When people have knowledge of events that take place they tend to attend those events. Any way to make an event easy to view then more people will go and see it.
>>scion what is your point the government gave Lockheed 45 million to get a demonstrator and go and excuse. The skin leaks helium. Lockheed kept the money of course.
The fact that Lockheed Martin may have wasted/blown/embezzled/shredded up and danced around naked in the government funds does not change GTEM's probability of raising capital. Your point is moot.
We all know that figure is bunk as it is company policy that Bob Jones is a "liar".
lol
Nerd, you're being very creative again in your interpretations. What don't you understand?
=========================================
From Bleckman's e-mail to nilrem
"I believe she strung together unrelated facts and opinion presented as fact (particularly the lies by Jones and Sands) and just threw it all into a PlayDoh extruder and cranked out this piece of trash. As a former financial journalist, if I had gone to my editor with what she wrote, he would have fired me on the spot. Every word of every sentence needs to be substantiated"
=========================================
It seems pretty clear that he is calling Jones and Sands liars. Do you see "particularly the misquotes of Jones and Sands by Cramer" in there somewhere that I do not?
As I said before, Jones only has 3 direct quotes in the article:
1. "When I left in September, there were engines in place,"
2. "Definitely, it's a setback. When I was there, it took around four to six weeks to make the wire harness."
3. "The company will succeed with appropriate funding and appropriate resources. If they don't have appropriate funding and resources, it would be very unlikely that this would happen."
#3 is immediately out in terms of disagreement as it is a no brainer statement that all would agree with.
So what was a lie? There were no engines in place? It's not a setback? It doesn't take four to six weeks to make a wire harness? It's interesting how vehemently Rob responded to what seem to be innocuous comments from Bob Jones.
Thank you eqbeck. Now I believe you.
It's nice to have someone on the board who actually answers questions directly and with proof.
And what Bleckman says can always be relied on right? lol
As I recall this was the guy who called Sands and Bob Jones liars, and then a few days later released news about the wire harness that he called Bob Jones a liar about.
>>They will release when the investigation has been completed.
Please provide your source for this information.
Again, as far as I know, there has been ABSOLUTELY NO CONFIRMATION from the company as to the date when they will release their financials. Neither have they said that they will release financials after the SEC investigation is done.
Like before, this is speculation on your part unless you can back it up with a statement from an official source. Please do not further mislead people on this board.
>>They will release figures when the SEC investigation has ended - everyone knows that.
I'm sorry sharklady, but this is speculation on your part. As far as I know the company has not confirmed any date/time when they will release their late/current financials.
>>I was wondering how long it would take for someone to call this PR fluff, and what was it, a nansosecond?
Because it was fluff?
Seriously, there is absolutely no need to PRE-pr the test flight, especially because it is not a viewing open to the public. It's just to make sure that lots of retail investors are watching with their fingers on the buy key when they successfully fly the balloon again.
First with the PR'ing of Discovery Channel video segments. And now again with the pre-announcing of blimp flights.
"Hey look everyone we're going to do it. Come look!"
"Yay we did it! Look we're a legitimate company that delivers results! Yay, buy our stock!"
Do it. Then announce it. I thought current management was going to follow this criteria for PRs?
And as usual, details such as the whole wire harness deal are discovered/revealed by third parties before being mentioned by the company.
"Oops, you found out. Uhhh here's why."
Absolutely hilarious.
To be fair I do not believe that the company has issued any new shares for a year or more. They have not had a registration statement declared effective since early last year, as such they can not be issuing new shares unrestricted shares into the market i.e. that is not what is driving the price down.
Institutional and retail selling of existing supply is what pounded the price down.
>>And just exactly where is all their experience?
I was going to put 'experience' in quotations in my post also(as I also doubt that they actually have the necessary skills and experience to put up a national wireless network) but I didn't want to get mobbed by the pumpers sending me pictures of Huff in college at his fraternity Delta Phelta Ghi and telling me how Huff graduated summa cum laude from the EE program or whatever.
If GTEM was smart they would quickly find a partner to handle the development of the blimp itself and just concentrate on the telecommunications portion of it. Since this is where all their experience is it would make much more sense than hanging on to their own blimp crew and wasting cash/time between two companies.
There seem to be enough companies interested in creating these HAA now that finding a partner to collaborate with and technology share wouldn't be such an issue.
But that's not going to happen.
>>What it does do is provide independant documentation of a continuing effort, which is very, very important for Globetel. That is why it got PR'd.
I'm quite sure that GTEM's desire to provide shareholders with 'independant' documentation is not why the Discovery Channel show was PR'd, despite what Bleckman says. In fact, this is exactly the type of info that is appropriate to come through Bleckman's e-mails to board members in that it is non-material but may be of interest to shareholders. Yet Robby seems to like doing the exact opposite, disturbing things cans only be found out through his e-mails, and glossy smiley items through PRs.
Thank you Frank.
Have any of the Ihubers with the Bleckman Hotline (tm) asked him exactly what the purpose of this PR was? It would certainly be interesting to see how he answers.
Today's "Discovery Channel" PR should be an indication to all shareholders that management has done little to change it's behavior. I think even the most diehard pumper would have difficulty defending the PR today. Announcing the broadcast of a Discovery Channel special that was almost a month old? What is that...
It's back to the same old fluff PRs and PRs with no backup. Where are all the agreements backing up their recently announced deals? Until they are formally filed with the SEC the record of failed deals continues to glare GTEM bagholders in the eye.
Hahahaah, discovery channel PR.
What happened to the 'results based' PR system?
Got to be kidding me right? Announcing that the Strat was on the Canadian Discovery Channel? One more check in the ‘Desperate Pumping’ column for GTEM, anyone want to tally score with me? lmao.
Nerd, you apparently have never heard of the impact which credit has upon both the probability and cost of a bank financing. Bankers do like to see projections, but when it comes to established companies, records or performance are just as important. I can almost assure you that with the recent history of operations which GTEM has there is no bank in their right mind which would touch it with a 23.5' pole.
Any bank debt that would be issued would be collateralized up the wazoo and would probably ask for personal guarantees from the officers. This last part is one of the main reasons you will never see bank debt, the officers will never EVER put their assets on the line.
You also apparently do not know how to spell apparently. Hope your business wasn't spelling related.
>>At this point, should the Joint Venture be established, a loan would not be too difficult to acquire.
You're kidding me right. Exactly what kind of 'bank' is going to be giving GTEM money? Let's see, the loan manager sits down and looks at the past year's history of this company and sees failed, shady deals, delisting of company stock, SEC investigation, NO financial information available for the past 6 months, the available financial information shows a company with a history of SEVERE liquidity problems, and a management with a history of providing misleading documents to exchange officials....
Looks like a real winner there. You can be 99% sure that money is going to come from equity or equity backed debt.
"The difference between us and other banks is that they're banks"
>>would you assume even further shareholder dilution in fiscal 2007 quenching the thirst for cash?
I think you could consider that a given. There are few banks that would extend any kind of letter of credit to GTEM. If GTEM did another debt financing you can assume that the cost is going to go up if they don't grant secured debt outright.
>>As another poster pointed out earlier, we don't know if Rob was calling them liars per se,
I find it hard to believe that Rob could be so imprecise in his language, both because i'm sure he has a grasp of the english language, and the fact that Bob Jones' statements are very simple and straightforward.
As I posted before there are only two statements by Jones' which are worth disputing and they are very straightforward and difficulty to misquote.
"When I left in September, there were engines in place,"
"Definitely, it's a setback. When I was there, it took around four to six weeks to make the wire harness."
So Rob meant one of two things
1. Jones is lying in his direct quotes
2. The context in which Cramer set Jones' quotes are lies
If:
1. is true then Rob should be asked exactly which Jones' statement is a lie
2. is true then why call Jones' a liar...it is Cramer's writing. Bleckman should know that whatever is not in direct quotes should be taken as writer interpretation. Not grounds for calling someone a liar imo.
The exonerating circumstance for both is that Kelly Cramer has completely misquoted Bob Jones. I find this difficult to believe, not because I trust her journalistic integrity (or lack thereof) but because the quotes Jones has provided are so simple. There is very little to misquote there, either there were engines or not, either it takes four to six weeks to make a harness or it does not.
>>(particularly the lies by Jones and Sands)
This part is very interesting. Here are the direct quotes attributed to Bob Jones in the article:
1. "When I left in September, there were engines in place,"
2. "Definitely, it's a setback. When I was there, it took around four to six weeks to make the wire harness."
3. "The company will succeed with appropriate funding and appropriate resources. If they don't have appropriate funding and resources, it would be very unlikely that this would happen."
I would think that #3 is immediately out in terms of disagreement as it is a no brainer statement that all would agree with. If you don't have appropriate funding obviously nothing is going to happen. Perhaps you could ask Rob exactly which statement of Bob Jones' is a lie?
There were no engines in place? It's not a setback? It doesn't take four to six weeks to make a wire harness? It's interesting how vehemently Rob responded to what seem to be innocuous comments from Bob Jones.
>>I knew all about it. She came knocking on our door determined to do an article, stating that her editor asked her to write one because he was "really really into the airship...I suspected something was up."
I thought he was in Texas??? How is it "our" door.
No answer huh.
>>tradefor why would a trial marketing effort be considered material.
You're telling me that a "joint development and marketing venture" (their words not mine) that they suddenly entered into is not material?? It would seem to be slightly disturbing if they are announcing/PR'ing deals and contracts again which are not material. Perhaps you would like to work yourself out of this corner?
Also where does it say that MetroTel is a "trial marketing effort" (your words, not mine)? Since you hold me to the released news and financials I feel obligated to hold you to them as well.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070116/20070116005579.html?.v=1
Question: Why hasn't the MetroTel PR/release been filed with the SEC yet? I thought they would have to file by now?
lmao...please tell me how I am trying to CRUSH GTEM today.
>>Maybe he/she types with a lisp
It would be hilarious if people actually did that. "Ssssstop it!"
All jokes aside I would love to hear the answer to this one. So here's what I see so far.
1) VKOENIG says he has been misquoted, and that the GIRL/WOMAN he spoke with/gave quotes to butchered everything. Starts to pursue legal action.
2) Kelly Cramer turns out to be a guy.
Can anyone please tell me which one of the two above statements is false, because one is.
Kelly is a guy???
Then why does vkoenig here keep saying that he spoke to a girl. That is an interesting little inconsistency.
Who is correct?
My thoughts exactly.
Could it be that there isn't actually a huge conspiracy involving lots of time and money to knock down a little $45mil market cap company? Hmmmm.....
Any answer to this LoneEagle?
>>>What I got from Vern's postings last week was that you are an insider of the company. If not legally an 'insider' by definition of the SEC then just an employee of the company.
Please clarify exactly what kind of magic DD got you this information. Do you monitor their phone lines or something?
I don't recall saying that. Please find it for me.
I do recall saying that if GTEM actually got the second buildout ($5mm prepay etc.) I would be very impressed and that it would put them in a much better financial condition.
No need to be so vindictive nerd, if I am wrong I will admit I am wrong. But the time for conclusions about this company is far far away. This (if legitimate) is only the first step in clawing their way out of the 50ft pit they have dug for themselves.