Thanks Warp, that's interesting... In looking at some of the agreements posted at Joe's site, I'm fascinated at the way some of them were written...
"for each one million dollars ($1,000,000) in revenue provided to GTEL, CSI will receive one hundred thousand
(100,000) shares of GTEL stock held by CGI."
Now this may have been contingent on other factors, but 100,000 shares for one million in "REVENUE"???
Haven't many of us come to the conclusion that Centerline was capturing revenue which really wasn't revenue, but the restating of something else. This was only revenue? They could have been losing money on it yet...100,000 shares? When the shares were worth $3 they could have been paying the equivalent of $300,000 for a million in revenue that was making 2% margin....
amazing why would a company do that?
Now remember, I said this claus and others could very well have been contingent on other factors, and they may have never been triggered.
But when you read through those contracts, it's obvious the company didn't mind spending shares like water!
Wouldn't it make more sense to tie it to profits... it gets better
"CSI may with GTEL approval, elect to transfer or assign a CSI customer to GTEL in exchsnge for GTEL stock. The issuance of stock under this section for lhe first fourteen (14) months which shall be deemed one (l) year of operation shall be based on the following formula - for each one dollar ($1) of gross margin received by GTEL, CSI shall receive eight and a half(8.5) CIEL shares, the minimum number of dollares that CSI can esm for year one is six (6) million shares."
I must not be reading that right. If the shares were worth $2 surely they wouldn't pay $17 for $1 dollar in margin...
Would they?
