Replies to post #9192 on PowerLinx Inc (PWNX)

[FrankNG]

It says in the article:"Ditka told The Business Journal his short business relationship with SeaView consisted of appearing in an infomercial and that he remains a shareholder."

This to me means he is not on the team. SeaView touted him as the official spokesman. Appears that Ditka is not a spokesman for a long time according to the article. It also seems that Ditka might have not authorised Seaview to continue to use his pictures and good name. SeaView had a chance to clarify the situation but according to the article:"SeaView officials did not return calls regarding Ditka."

"Ditka completed the infomercial for SeaView six months ago, he said. The company's continued use of his name and photograph is an issue that is currently being resolved, said Steve Nudelberg, Ditka's sports agent at On the Ball Inc. Sports Marketing in Weston, Fla."

http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=117151

[FrankNG]

I also wonder what further dilution this will cause. How many shares will it take at todays closing price of 31 cents to settle with Ditka?

"I wonder is he also sues seaview if this issue is not settled?Ditka completed the infomercial for SeaView six months ago, he said. The company's continued use of his name and photograph is an issue that is currently being resolved, said Steve Nudelberg, Ditka's sports agent at On the Ball Inc. Sports Marketing in Weston, Fla."

[Duly Diligent]

Ditka "Believed (SEVU)" <<< PAST TENSE.eom

[Duly Diligent]

Ditka: "If.. product could work" <<< FUTURE TENSE . . .

That means he doesn't thinks it works NOW;
maybe might work IN FUTURE.

This quote is RECENT, therefore if he were referring to it not working at some point in the past, he would have said "If..product could have worked"

He doesn't expand to say whether "works" means :
a) technically
b) marketing-wise
c) financially for SEVU
d) all 3 above

There is no hard proof that it works in any of the above senses, other than PR's from SEVU et. al. For contrary evidence, see
a) management's continuous noting of problems in the design/manufacturing (as recent as last month),
b) empty void of public endorsements by ANY major distributors/retailers
c) the financial statements, as recently as 1Q 2001.

[Duly Diligent]

Ditka: "business.. with SeaView consisted"<<<PAST TENSE.eom

[Duly Diligent]

Ditka:"company's..use of name..an issue"<<<NOT.HAPPY.CAMPER.eom

[Duly Diligent]

Ditka: "short business relationship..completed"<<HISTORY.eom

[Duly Diligent]

Let's connect the dots for those challenged types:
1) "short business relationship with SeaView consisted of appearing in an infomercial "
2) "Ditka completed the infomercial for SeaView six months ago"

(come'on SH et. al. - there's ONLY 2 DOTS)