ITGuy...it looks as though everyone is really trying to say the same thing but a little differently.
So perhaps this may help to clear things up, too?
In any Joint Venture, the actual act of combining two (or more) companies for this purpose does not usually cause the immediate generation of revenue, in that there isn't a buyout/exchange of shares and/or funds of one company for another. So in that context, it makes sense that Paul would say that the act of working with SFB and finalizing a Joint Venture in and of itself is not a revenue play.
A Joint Venture is by definition:
A contractual agreement joining together two or more parties for the purpose of executing a particular business undertaking. All parties agree to share in the profits and losses of the enterprise.
So, therefore, it is the actual business venture that is a result of the joint venture that will bring in the revenues...and in Spooz's case it's the creation of the SMCC.
And as you quoted from the PR...it is the SMCC that will bring in revenue for both Spooz and SFB, as a result.
I did speak to Paul about the revenue potential from SMCC, once it is up and running and as shinebox has stated...that revenue stream potential is remarkably large or huge, for both Spooz and SFB, through SMCC.
The secret to profitable investing is to buy into well-run companies at the beginning of their earnings growth cycle—before Wall Street takes notice and bids up the stock price.
My opinions are my own. You have to decide and do what's best for you.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
