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.
SF, you’re seeing through the smoke:
“Again, it wasn't my whole life, which, unfortunately, doesn't seem to be the situation for you.”
Pretty much sums it up. Part time CEO and lawyer trying to take an early stage company to success.
Takes determination, drive, moxie, smarts, wise decision making, etc. ……not enough “blood” in the game to give it all. IMO
Looks like the General is pointing a finger from RB’s message……..
“I have no problem conceptually with granting options to management for excellent performance or for incentive purposes, but the timing seemed a bit off, especially in light of the continuing share price decline. It ruined what otherwise might have been an encouraging report.”
…with statements like this, as it’s also like calling the kettle black. Didn’t previous management take a huge pay (not even incentives or performance bonus) increase and additional stock when in fact the company’s performance was in decline and only got worse?
Sounds like the General is not just tired but P.O.’d at this statement…………
“Anyone else getting tired of hearing how hard they're working "building shareholder value?" Perhaps they're trying to build a company, but in light of the stock chart over the past year, they're certainly not "building shareholder value."
....doesn’t this statement sound all too familiar from the past CEO shouting from years ago? Plus we kept hearing how good the Dutchess deal was, when in essence it’s a potential “death spiral”. Huge difference in working hard and working smart.
The company needs to do whatever it can to hold on to its employees at this juncture, we need to cross our fingers creditors remain at bay and hope for PROFITABLE revenue.
something is starting to smell fishy here,,,why the defensive post?? no accusations were made. But then again who was the CFO?
One significant issue is those doing due diligence and reviewing historical financial filings may interpret this item incorrectly when looking to invest.
And how do we know there where no other alternatives available then dealing with dutchess and/or any of the board's influence?
Looks like you may have hit a nerve SF
Historical posts reveal Wells was on the board, is related to Ferris and once a partner to Ritz. roseball should know -but will he confess?
I recommend basing judgement on facts and historical events rather then who posts what....even bylo. But as always, my posts are simply my opinions.
Stick to your guns SF you obviously hit the bulls eye with your accurate assessment. Previous managerial mistakes are too many to mention when the “buck stops here”. Looking back as the clouds are more clear it seems it was only about one person’s benefit, all other interests were secondary no matter how thick the cover. So unfortunate it appears ego and greed superseded the best interest of a company with such potential.
We can only hope the Gen. can dig out of such a huge hole left behind.
RB: Why would you be so generous to drop the suit since stating you're dissatisfaction with the company and their lack of good faith with you? Could it be because a possible counter suit may have merit? Something smells a little fishy in this bowl.
Could management be so irresponsible as not to negotiate settlement if the fees were legit?
On behalf -for the benefit of shareholders just drop your suit, the company doesn't need more distractions and they don't have the money.
RB, you state no contact with the company -what about the lawsuit(s)? How about enlightening us on that? What is that status?
Are you taking legal action to collect all those expenses and legal fees you mentioned to the board earlier?
After all your years there, there must be at least one employee you still remain friendly and in contact.
Right Cyber -ahead of the rest on this one. Although fairly common issue for those familiar with publicly traded securities but sure was funny watching RB insist that a 'yes' vote probably wouldn't pass over the last few weeks. Only hoped the humor lasted longer.
The new General lead management seems to have some things going for it now.
Simplistic business practice would derive there will be no invitations to the BOD for those with poor past performances -now or ever. Assumptions are most likely there were good reasons for the BOD actions for what transpired. Can only speculate time (or the courts) will tell as the truth may surprise many.
Imagine having a vision for the future rather then running a company by the seat of the pants.....give the general his due in actually strategically planning ahead, instead of doing business in day to day survival mode -something this conmpany sorely needs.
as the adage says; it takes money to make money....or shares.
I would speculate the leaseholders would prefer he get a similar deal at best. After all, they put personal cash into the company in its early stages. They didn't get a salary or any expenses reimbursed.
Professional corporate governance has real trusted and experienced individuals who contribute input as the BOD and a selected advisory group or groups, not a kitchen drawer. The crystal ball wonders who was making decisions without who's approval now. This may lead to some answers.
sbc357: However, If they will not even spend some time communicating with the ex-CEO regarding expenses incurred to attempt to help the company............
Could this be a tactical ploy by the company? Many lawsuits for such a small company were instituted that it makes one wonder if they too couldn't have been negotiated prior to filing a suit. Worse yet, could the current BOD think they weren't warranted as well as all those expenses and that's why they're taking this tact? Could their chances or reward be better in court?
Sure seems to be a lot of conflicting statements on this issue and truly where "best interests" lie.
SF,
Stick to your guns. You are entitled to your objective views once peering thru fancy words, dodgy answers -the smoke and mirrors. Your long term assessments give you credibility even without the benefit of full disclosure.
Demanding clear concise answers to those "handling" our invested money is a right that should not be ignored.
The wiser ones will soon see your view more clearly.
SirFelix has pretty much hit the nail on the head. The company will need to dilute in some form (no bank will make them a loan) to survive -pay salaries, G&A, debt, etc. Also smart not to blindly play follow the past leader -especially without the same interest as the rest. Don't forget not omly is the share volume much greater but he is also a major debtor with about $1/2 million at stake. And who truly knows no grudge is held from being left out of the boards decisions. Possible toxic potion???
RB- Confused here, who would advise you (the CEO-CFO) that "we" had money to take out Dutchess?
the chrystal ball guesses everyone in the company has had more than enough and are tired of hearing him, that’s why he was pushed out the door – I mean resigned……
especially if they are being sued
Would it be in the best interest of the shareholders for Virtra to be sued for past due legal fees?
I agree the merger should be pushed through, as it is the only indication for an entity to generate revenue. Even at reverse split numbers, isn't it better to have a small piece of something with value then a lot of something with next to no value?
I just hope the 2 companies are not trying to back out due to virtra's lack of ability to perform since the merger talks were started and it’s lack of experienced management. All due respect to the General, but not just anyone can successfully run a company and in this case turn it around. Sometimes due diligence shakes out the skeletons and it takes awhile -JMO
It appears the new management is only willing to announce deals that acually happen, rather then "pipeline" prospects. That much I applaud.
As the CEO and CFO what valuation did you have for the ccmpany at the time you left? Also, from a previous post, what will you do about all the back rent and legal bills owed to your firm? Is your firm still the legal respresentative of the company? If so, will it be if the merger goes through?
Is it possible the "deal" involved a change in leadership to those with more knowledge of the companies being bought and a track record of success?
In that case, I see why anyone would be against it if they were to lose their nice salary.
Well said bill. That's what the message was concerning "best interest", no different from them and now. No matter what any forked tongue tells you.
Clarity shows a merger could be necessary for survival and what better vehicle than a public shell or one with next to nothing in revenue for private companies to roll into.
My opinion, it's better than riding on that big aircraft carrier that was supposed to be turned around 1,2,3 years ago but is now about to sink....Now who do you want to be captain?
My chrystal ball says if the ceo (former) had good management and general business skills, not to mention employee/associate relations this company altering event would never had been a surprise or caused anyone go behind anyones back. (see reman post)
Hard to imagine this could happen to a public company.
Don't confuse personal greed and huge ego with "best interest" of the shareholders. JMO
Wow, it sure sounds familiar, like those fluffy shareholder letters from the past. IMHO
Not "kiss and tell"? What do you call that?
Who is Bo Ritz and why is he so influencial?
To everyone who posts here, please be aware and extremely careful with your words and disclaimers as you could be subject to a frivolous or meaningless lawsuit (not from me) by any negative or even constructive posts.
It would be an absolute tragedy that those who have already lost so much on this investment would endure even more financial expense.