Birdieman-
I will play the devil's advocate here, and present the following points I haven't been able to resolve:
1) I certainly haven't'forgotten who said that SLS technology would be embraced by the world; who said that SLS sales would hit $1B by 2010; who said that SLS had adequate funding lined up to execute their expansion plans. It was the same guy who also continued to say that everything was fine, that sales were great, and that the company was never better. All of that lies (rightly so) squarely at the feet of John Gott. IMO, his actions and statements since the meltdown indicate that he never gave two sh*ts about shareholders - the way he sees it, he sold a lot of people stock @ .25 when it was trading @ $3.00, and those that didn't buy stock from him directly should be mad at those from whom they did buy it, not him......That kind of worldview is no doubt one of the main reasons the public ship SLS sank as it did, and it is unlikely that it will be recovered while John is at the helm.
2) Any comments from him that might indicate that he is chomping at the bit to prove pundits wrong should not be given any consideration until such time as Form 4s start rolling in showing that John Gott feels the stock is undervalued enough to start buying large blocks (millions of shares) on the open market. Until he puts his money where his mouth is, nothing he says means anything to investors who have lost 90% of their holdings because of his ineptitude.
3) Any comments from him about mystery novel writers choking on their Big Chief pads when they find out what the company has been doing must be viewed through the comparative lenses of past utterances (referred to in point #1); if SLS boosted sales from $200K to $300K in their Cinema division, while technically true that they increased sales 50%, the reality is that such increases are so far short of market (i.e., investor) expectations that only a mother of such a child would feel progress was made. The market is waiting for him to make good on what he said he was going to do, and that isn't the fault of negative posters on message boards.
4) I used to think that he was considerate enough of shareholders for not engaging in toxic financing (of the kind we see regularly on the OTC), but now I believe he never did because such a deal would have jeopardized his control of the company if the bottom ever fell out of the retail expansion plan, and had very little to do with his concern for shareholders. Obviously, his foresight served him well there. As best as I can tell, the deal he inked with the Preferred C shareholders will keep them at bay indefinitely, as long as he makes some sort of payment on the debt.
John Gott may continue to claim that the bag of crap investors are now holding isn't crap but gold; what is it that Cheech and Chong said in one of their bits:
"If it looks like sh*t, and smells like sh*t, it most likely is sh*t"
More truth there than in the emails coming from Ozark, IMO.
