InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 57
Posts 3280
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/10/2013

Re: bryceharper90 post# 270491

Saturday, 02/06/2016 10:14:19 PM

Saturday, February 06, 2016 10:14:19 PM

Post# of 347753
That's your theory according to what Vanis said. Same guy who's said quite a lot things. Another theory is they started scaling it down because they were running out of money, hence the reverse split and the reported $281 they had on the last Q. Then pretty much they offered what they did for the brand and it was take that or it goes back to being a useless concept no one is pushing. If it was some negotiation tactic over a great opportunity, that emerged, they wouldn't have given up that much, as the brand would be MORE valuable.

Whatever theory there is for what happened, how come so little has been done for the brand in the 4 months they've now fully owned it???