Replies to post #95673 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[scoripionking1]

what is this?

5. My understanding is that the funding for the cash side of this is all coming from one group...for both of these transactions...the sales license and the 50-50 solid contract. Two tranches of funding, but both tied together.

6. We will not know about the first until the second is completed, because if the first is announced the SEC would view it as a "solicitation" and the funders and the company do not want that perception at this time. This is a very private group of valued investors doing this apparently.

Can I ask,how did you come to get this inside info? I see from past posts that you have a direct line to IR. Is this true? If it is,this should not be put forth on a message board.The company should not give you the "inside track" so to speak, over all the shareholders.This is one of the charges in the Wells Notice. Boy,now I can see why they have problems.No upstanding company would tell a message poster info,before its put out in a PR,for all to see......Its called "transparency" which this company knows nothing about

[owlnight]

any funding of note needs to be 8k'd....just cuz the deal is closed does not mean they other side has been paid......GTEM does after all still have that 500k coming to it.....clearly the good doc can read that......i have no idea how far that 500k will go and how much more they will need......that really is the big question......but as far as i can see it should be quite reasonable......iow i don't see any massive dilution coming.....i suppose the real news of note here is what appears to be a sense of urgency....does GTEM already have a buyer?......don't really know.....but atleast its getting things done....so i will hang around and see what happens......no risk.....no reward.LOL

[skram]

I haven't been following so closely lately although I still have a small position in GTEM. Have we heard if No Mas Cables is still alive or not? Always appreciate the info and opinions you post. TIA

[ccboyii]

Come on Mide. Do you really think someone like Elisra or Raytheon would offer an "iron-clad contract for this SAS-51 or whatever TAO has."???? Sorry buddy but I am just not seeing it.

Up to the wells notice the company received, I was as long as they come (since early '05) but I have finally "lost the faith" with these guys. I am now of the mindset that whoever is left at Globetel is simply interested in getting the financials current so they can recoup some sort of value for the shares they are holding... simple, end of story.

Of course, this is only my opinion, but it is based on following this company for coming up on 3 very long and painful years. Now, believe it or not, I hope I am wrong and wish those who continue to hold all the best (not like many who remain on this board after selling out for a loss and want to continue to "howl at the moon" about their mistake). I have made peace with this very bad decision (e.g. putting so much into a microcap stock) and hope others do the same in time.

[pokestake]

Mide,

5. "...the sales license and the 50-50 solid contract...."

6. "We will not know about the first until the second is completed, because if the first is announced the SEC would view it as a "solicitation" and the funders and the company do not want that perception at this time. This is a very private group of valued investors doing this apparently."


Aside from the SEC considerations it would also be a basic business interest on the part of the sellers to limit their exposure by making the second precede the first, or at least to make the first contingent upon the finalization of the second.

[siriuslyricher]

I think you are right here, Mide:

"We will not know about the first [part of the financing] until the second is completed, because if the first is announced the SEC would view it as a "solicitation".

Check with your corporate lawyers, but I believe this would be considered the correct business practice.

[ColeThornton]

mide, your post raises a few obvious questions...

"Elisra, Raytheon and any other cozy ex-USA governments, either gets some iron-clad contracts for this SAS-51 or whatever TAO has, locked and solid or the Tao-Sanswire deal is toast."

Since TAO has had the ship we saw in the video, or one like it for many years, why didn't anyone want to buy it before now? TAO has had solar power long before GTEM and the autonomous controls are available from the same company that supplies the "real" companies. Why in the world do you think putting the name of a failed brand on the side would make any difference? If someone wanted what TAO had they would have already bought it as GTEM has nothing to offer that hasn't been available for a great while.

"We will not know about the first until the second is completed..."

Why was there even a need for the second one? If the first one is GlobeTel buying TAO, why would they have to come back and license anything? I can only see two possible reasons...

1) As usual, GlobeTel wanted to squeeze as many press releases out of this deal as possible.

2) The first deal may not be what many expect. TAO, may have said why should they include the technology they have already accomplished themselves. They may have wanted to "only" license for sale their existing technolgy to GTEM and "not" allow GTEM to actually own it.

Can you see any other possibilities for why they would waste time on a licensing agreement if the original agreement were going to make it void in a matter of days anyway?

[nosyajfm]

"5. My understanding is that the funding for the cash side of this is all coming from one group...for both of these transactions...the sales license and the 50-50 solid contract. Two tranches of funding, but both tied together.

6. We will not know about the first until the second is completed, because if the first is announced the SEC would view it as a "solicitation" and the funders and the company do not want that perception at this time. This is a very private group of valued investors doing this apparently.

My opinion..."

-snip-

Your opinion? This appears to be more than an opinion to the casual observer. Not to mince words, but you plainly state it is your "understanding". Was this information regarding funding provided to you by the company? I can find no evidence in regulatory filings or press releases. Where did you get this information? I've spoken with the company on 3 occasions in the last month regarding funding and was told that any announcements would be made publicly through filings or PR's.

[Destan]

You said: "To me the signal is very clear. Within the next 60 days or so, this company, based on its supposed relationships with military, Elisra, Raytheon and any other cozy ex-USA governments, either gets some iron-clad contracts for this SAS-51 or whatever TAO has, locked and solid or the Tao-Sanswire deal is toast"

Over a Year later... we have no Contract and no current Financials!


Is the Sanswire Tao Deal Toast now?