Replies to post #288448 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[CYRXorbust]

the only thing you said that is at all true:

A brand new trading week ahead


thank you for that piece of info.. otherwise NO THANK YOU

[sponge_digger]

There's no arguing the fact of management owing a fiduciary duty to shareholders to keep same fully up-to-date and informed at all times. No arguing, additionally, with the fact of all involved being entitled to personal perspective as regards all. Your having made your own stance perfectly clear.

The Company is being sued by its OWN SHAREHOLDERS. Current and past. The non-disclosure of "goings-on" is no big surprise based on the prior sentence. Once that gets cleared up I would expect the company to begin more detailed PR's and letters to shareholders

JMO

[patchman]

'We are proud to announce that our Company is now cash flow positive and can finance our immediate growth from the cash generated within. We have been in negotiation with two banking institutions that could potentially provide us with accounts receivable financing, if and when needed for the future growth of our Company. However we hope that future cash requirements for product development, marketing, production, and financing of inventories and receivables can and will be generated internally.'

Interesting. A company claiming to be cash flow positive and can generate immediate growth and yet every negative event taking place with SPNG that we have witnessed (GFGU Lawsuit, Mets, MSG, etc...) all identify that the payments were being made by RME and/or checks bounced. Neither would indicate a cash flow positive company.


Stox, you seem to talk like a person with inside information. why is SPNG talking to you alone and not the entire shareholder base or, are you just claiming you know this but really don't?

[OldTymer]

stoxmagic, I finally figured it out!...

You type like George Bush Sr. used to speak. I knew that style rang a bell. lol. A couple of things:

Regarding SPNG and RME. There is what's called an "Arms Length Principle" that business dealings (and other areas) must adhere to.

You said: "In the case of SPNG and RM Enterprises we're talking financing viewable as a series of private placements. Equity-based. The involved issuances viewable as collateral. Loan collateral. Those issuances complete with a restrictive legend(s) attached. And issued at a 40% discount to market level in light of associated risk. That market level could see a significant and sustained downturn post-issuances. A matter of management putting their own money on the line in bringing value to all involved."

The law says:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Arm's+length+principle

"arm's length adj. the description of an agreement made by two parties freely and independently of each other, and without some special relationship, such as being a relative, having another deal on the side or one party having complete control of the other. It becomes important to determine if an agreement was freely entered into to show that the price, requirements, and other conditions were fair and real. Example: if a man sells property to his son the value set may not be the true value since it may not have been an "arm's length" transaction. (See: contract)"

It seems to me that the relationship between Moskowitz and Moskowitz couldn't be closer, regardless of what their (his?) intent was, i.e., to provide funding for SPNG, or the fact that it was loan collateral. Doing it this way to avoid toxic funding is admirable, but the "Arms Length Principle" also has it's own rules. Maybe the SEC decided that relationship was a no-no? I don't know-know if it was a no-no, but it could have been.

You Said:

"'We are proud to announce that our Company is now cash flow positive and can finance our immediate growth from the cash generated within. We have been in negotiation with two banking institutions that could potentially provide us with accounts receivable financing, if and when needed for the future growth of our Company. However we hope that future cash requirements for product development, marketing, production, and financing of inventories and receivables can and will be generated internally.'"

Then how did a $70,000 check bounce?

You said:

"Mr. Moskowitz having, again, made the situation entirely plain. The OTCBB first. THEN all hell breaks loose! Flatly stated via email in response to a series of very direct questions."

Mr. Moskowitz doesn't exactly have the best track record of telling the truth. I'm not talking about just missed deadlines. I'm talking about flat out lieing. Did it ever occur to you that you and your 'group' are being misled? If everything you are posting here is coming from Mr. Moskowitz, how can you be sure of anything?

p.s. As several have stated many times before, SPNG is NOT "America's Cleaning Company." That slogan belongs to Vanity. SPNG's slogan is now: "The Smarter Sponge." You did know that, right?

[cowtown jay]

Hi, stox

Your quote of Metter's comments at the Noble Conference, regarding the company now being cash flow positive, has some here wondering why so many payments are still being made by RME. And the veracity of Mr. Metter's comment has been challenged.

As a shareholder, should I be alarmed by this? Do I have to necessarily accept the naysayers' contention that the company is not, in fact, generating positive cash flow? What considerations are relevant in making a determination?

I'm not concerned. My reasons being, in part, based on the following.

> RME has returned hundreds of millions of shares to the company. Those shares retired and returned to the treasury, according to filings.

> For the next month, the company still has the right to repurchase all remaining shares issued to RME over the last 2 years, at the original purchase price of the shares. This also, according to filings.

> And what is generating such a demand for cash by the company? We know the company has a growth target they are trying to achieve. That growth requiring a significant increase in inventory levels for initial orders to new customers. Also demanding additional manufacturing capacity to produce sufficient product to meet projected re-order levels. Is Walmart likely to enter into a purchase agreement if current inventory levels, and the company's ability to maintain order levels, is less than they require?

Add to the list any acquisitions that may present themselves. Include the cash required to keep the new product pipeline financed. And just how many shares, beyond the announced buyback quantity, might the company have purchased?

We are all painfully aware of the precarious situation we find ourselves in with the SEC. Their perspective backwards-looking.

But we are equally aware that Pike, and the others who will join him, are looking to the future. And I see no reason not to share that future with them.

Thank you, stox, as always.

jay