Replies to post #71336 on Sustainable Green Team Ltd (SGTM)

[JammingJAY]

But some are in serious denial to think that this is due to anything but Doug Evans.
He is the one selling shares on a continuous basis. He sold the billion shares to the scammer in NY only to get screwed himself.

Exactly, share price and structure is the CEO duty.

SEC charges against fairhills.

Sierra Gold Corp.
8/09-4/11 Acquisition
8/09-5/11 Resale
30 TRANSACTIONS with ISSUER (That would be CEO)
1.1 billion Total
$1,713,000 Gross
$836,000 profit

Some simple math,

1,713,000
- 836,000
---------
877,000 / 1001000000 = .0008 Cost.

So from 08/09 to 4/11 management spent $877K plus had to dilute.

The stock was channeled .0001 to .0002 with some bumps to 3s & 4s the whole time.

That is until the DTCC locked it. Dougs letter is quite on the mark as I said on this board this is dead until the SEC is done with fairhills. The problem is can SGCP survive the lock.

The DTCC may allow trading again if SGCP management had no involvement and fraud was committed. I did noticed the SEC moved quick on some of the other named stocks and was glad SGCP survived that sweep.

[mdb1]

Agree with Sagan, that most of blame must go to Doug & John for creating the situations(losing Pampana North, buying lots of dredges, presenting conservative estimates - that smacked of Pump & Dump or a scam).

I also strongly believe that if SGCP had NOT lost Pampana North, we shareholders would be holding a $1 to $2 stock today. SGCP had a very small openpit ops & they were recovering lots of gold. They could had dramatically expanded it, adding heavy machinery.

They also could have dredged in that area of the Pampana River and made profit.

Losing Pampana North has made making a profit from gold ops, (so far for 4 years) a non-profitable operation for SGCP.

[the cork]

All I'm saying is, if External Influence contributed to Value Destruction then it can't complain if the price goes down (Dilution).

It's a conveniently circular "chicken or the egg" argument.

If that External Influence engages in Value Destruction, and it takes CEO Evans more shares to equip and fund the company during the start up period (than it otherwise would have), then that External Influence contributed to the dilutive process.

That just cost SGCP AND shareholders value.

So can't have it both ways.

The needlessly lost value during critical periods of SGCP's growth is stunning. Could use some of that lost value right now.

Value Destruction during the "dupedby" period was just a new low in the successive waves of Value Destruction. Trollish tag team swarming tactics dogged SGCP at every critical developmental step and cost shareholders inestimable value. I suspect in the big picture it is at least 1 billion shares and very possibly as high as 2 billion AUTHORIZED shares.

SGCP started out panning for gold by hand. Then:

SGCP bought a dredge. SGCP bought a wash plant. SGCP bought 3 more dredges, SGCP bought 2 tractors, SGCP built a compound, SGCP built roads, SGCP bought kiri Trees, SGCP built bridges, SGCP built warehouses, SGCP bought (secured) prime mining concessions, SGCP bought (secured) over 3,000 prime agricultural acres and so forth.

Nobody was willing to give SGCP any of those things.

SGCP had to buy them.

That means, (and this is no secret!) SGCP had to sell shares to make that stuff happen.

Now,

Do you really think that CEO Evans would have had to sell as many shares if there had not been wave after wave of coordinated Value Destruction as characterized by the "dupedby" period. All successive waves (domicile change, etc ?) are more or less variations on that same destructive theme.

Doug never would have had to sell the last round of shares in the first place if he hadn't had the rug jerked out from under the share structure like that.

That has as much to do with "waking up and smelling the coffee" (as you put it) as anything else.

The two elements are inseparable. Value destruction / Dilution

If a guy contributed to the one, he really can't complain about the other.