pungentaroma wrote: Both sides of this argument are moot and both sides are right.
We are definitely seeing a move to support Beckett's 1st at this time and why wouldn't we? Our THC infuse drinks offers us 1 state and terrible regulatory issues. Our LBF is not fully operational and we have only 70 store fronts and online in 1 state.
Beckett's offers us a cheap product that does not interfere in anyway with our THC infused beverags, it gives us access to 50 states with no regulatory issues and places us in massive retailers with 1000's of locations to sell out of. Already we are in twice the amount of stores as dispensaries and we have 3 other major retailers looking to possibly stock our product and reach far more customers. Beckett's also gives us access to immediate revenues to build the company out and move to other states and countries, hopefully without taking on more dilution to fund operations.
Right now, the biggest issue is Covid for us and the markets serrling down.
We're all coming from the same place and arguing small potatoes.
We are a THC beverage company that was handed a gift called sober curious. Use it wisely and build up all sides of the company. All I want to see going forward is revenue growth, regardless of which side of the company it comes from. If Beckett's is going to do that for us in the short term than definitely focus on that side, all the while continuing to deal with the hurdles of THC and ramping up that side as it becomes more viable in the long term.
The next 2 financials come at a short period in between them. The annuals will show growth over the laast year and hopefully Q1 will show big growth in revenues only 1 month later.
That is what I'm focusing on as that could show investors where we are headed
Reyninak wrote: Funny (actually sad) how you just skipped slide 5, dismissed page 7 and skipped page 10 which are all about THC drinks...
Back to Slide 6... we read the information that the words convey; you focus on the age of the background picture. Are you serious?
Then Slide 8: Non-infused is the priority expansion in the rest of the US because it is the fastest, most direct trajectory towards revenues and establishing partnerships + a network.
That slide does show that the next steps are also to launch both infused and non-infused in Canada... but you'll just disregard that, right?
Anyway, whether the focused is on non-infused drinks 100% or 50% or 10%, the management team adjusts the plan according to what makes the most sense and brings the most value. Before THC drinks, the company was focused on Hemplify, then the focus shifted. Adjustments as you learn, that's how you build a company from the ground up in a new industry. And the management team has done that very wel.
If you don't trust management to do the right thing and you think you can do better, then go build your own THC-infused beverage company.
Next time, I'll communicate with you usig pictures, since that's what you focus on...
AKAIMWAAK wrote: So please humor me. The front page has a non infused drink as the leading pick of a supposedly THC beverage producing company, and you're gonna say with a straight face that the focus is on THC drinks? I wonder if Pepsi has a water bottle or a quart of milk as the leading pic in their company presentation?? pages 2 are disclosures. page 6 are pics (old pics I might add) of the bottling line (as mentioned, nothing new), page 7, nothing relevant, page 8 what is their priority expansion...yup, non infused!!. So, what is my point here: Focus is on NON infused drink with a company who sold itself as being a THC infused beverage manufacturer. That is not what is hapening at the moment. Some choose to see with colored glasses, I don't wear glasses! Usually mathematicians are rigorous in their analysis, Fibonacci must be turning in his grave knowing some poster on SH is using his name yet can't get simple facts straight.
Reyninak wrote: Page One - 3 bottles are on the page: 1 Bcekett's non-infused and 2 Tinley infused
Page 5, 6 and 7 are all about THC drinks
Page 8 is a shared between non-infused and infused
Page 10 is almost all about LBF and infused drinks (Beckett's is quickly mentioned)
More than half the presentation is about THC... but with your level of dishonesty, we can't expect you to recognize that.
AKAIMWAAK wrote: Sure: page one, what do you see as the main picuture? Page 4: what do you see on the side bar and main title? (pages 2 and 3 have nothing. Page 5 and 6: thc but nothing new really. So again, what is in your face here...Beckett's. Thc fluff is at the end of presentation.
Reyninak wrote: 4 of the 5 bullet points refer to infused drinks... yet you say that THC infused drinks are no longer the main focus. Riddle me that, my guy!
The focus is on both. How about that?
AKAIMWAAK wrote: Clearly (as I've raised the issue before) the main focus is no longer THC infused.
fib0nacci wrote: • Phase 3 licensing
• Co-packing deals (when Phase 3 licensed) – mainstream + cannabis brands
• Launch of Tinley and Becketts in Canada, then elsewhere
• Additional mass retail deals for Becketts
• Continued growth in California for infused + non-infused
Corporate Presentation Q1 2020 Obviously, these "estimated" timelines can be subject to change due to macro conditions outside of Tinley's control.