Replies to post #79932 on Bravada International Ltd (BRAV)

[tmac7]

1. No pinky starts off as a real company.
2. Mistakes in the Mfli days were very costly, Kardashian and the tv deals.
3. The mistakes being made now are smaller and can be remedied.
4. Profits should be up big this year.
I am looking at the big picture as far as trends and things look up. I have been right with you YU but when there is no dilution going on, then I can be more positive. But if Q2 financials are not better and accurate all bets are off at least for the short term. Erik is right about DA being a good salesman but Q2 will be the last Q i will fall for a sales job. DA needs to put out good verifiable financials then go current. If he plans on franchising then these items will be fixed. I for one think this is bad idea. The current trend is going away from store fronts and going with ecommerce.

[Beezerr34]

Love yah tmac7, but I think that statement is unacceptable. Is our (well, your) money financing the CEO's learning process a good investment?

And I think this statement is unacceptable. Business is ALL about learning, finding what works and replicating it. Anyone that says that they have nothing to learn when they start building a new business is lying to you! New business is FULL of learning experiences, growth pains, unforeseeable issues, etc., and, frankly, I think Danny is doing a fantastic job with those things. Notice how there is still no dilution? I know you didn't expect there to not be dilution. http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69293846

However, I think we all know that it isn't possible here, as the CEO provided himself with enough votes to outweigh anyone's vote(by producing those preferred shares). Heck, if one could somehow buy ALL of the outstanding shares, that person would have NO SAY in the business. Welcome to the pinks!! IMO...that's one of the stinkiest pinky moves a company can make.

This is intriguing to me Y U. Do you know why? The voting preferreds have been in place for YEARS! I'm curious as to why they are just now becoming an issue for you? I, for one, would like to present a counter argument and, like you, express my opinion. Danny has never taken his salary. You don't think that it's fair that a person in that position be protected from a takeover? Without the voting preferreds Danny has no guarantee that he'll ever get any of his deferred time investment back. How would you feel if you were in his position and, after putting in all this time and effort, someone took over the company and ousted you with no guarantee that you'll ever get back what you VOLUNTARILY deferred. With a deferred salary I would EXPECT to see that person protected. If you take away the voting preferreds, then you can take away the deferred salary. If you take away the deferred salary, then a whole lot more dilution would/would've hit the common shareholder. Dude, be fair!

Also, are you now implying that BRAV is not a real company?:

Any REAL company would have fired the current CEO years ago.