sneakysneaky wrote: Geo, for the 100th time, the Blaze loan is for 5 years, merger happens Q4 2022 - Q1 2023, default when the founder of Blaze is a new board member? C'mon, your pessimism is like a cancer on that topic. Same dumb narrative as Rick taking Lakewood private and not following though on the nominak fee acquisition, same $h!t different toilet.
If there are a lot of options better than Blaze speak up, or, forever hold your peace, Tinley's a publicly traded company, without Blaze investment & Rick G dilution could've been worse.
It's not s perfect world.
People are getting robbed for sandwiches in California, Tinley can't just say: hey, we have 2 million cash chilling out in our facility being secured by a big teddy bear.
Tinley provides financials, they're on sedar lol.
My pessimism is more like asking the tough questions. I do understand the deal that is in place for us but that date is only the long game plan. If Tinley defaults on payments, those dates are out the window and we will switch drivers, unless that is the goal, which at this writing seems like a good idea.
I have said it before that Tinley can't hide the money much longer and my finger on the pulse tells me that there should be some cash flow and even profit, on the horizon, finally, since Rick made mention of it a couple of years ago??
Everything we have been told seems to be happening and revenue, up front, should be flowing into Tinley's coffers unless we are doing free runs for all of those co-packers.
Co-packing suggests 50c per unit to a full max capacity of 30 million capability which probably doesn't leave much for shareholders unless plan b, setting up co-packers all over the country to produce our Tinley's line which should command a premium pricing, mark up for retailers and trickle down to shareholders.
There is some serious competition positioning themselves that I can't believe weren't circling us waiting to pounce for the licenses and the fact that we are farther along than they are in California which is a big enchilada in the greater scheme of things.
Tinley is still standing even after the crazy rate of poor choices that led to delays and questionable explanations and everyone wants to be part of a winner, including me.
Hindsight tells me I should have got out back in the good old $2 Hemplify days but as mentioned by others we have options. Maybe even our Beckett's if we can emulate Lyre's.
I'm watching with a raised eyebrow how co-bottling is more profitable than selling our own skus while watching Tilray picking up bottling capability that can be rapidly switched to thc skus from beer and cbd.
If we don't get some meaningful numbers soon, it suggests that we need to raise our co-bottling fee, push our own premium award winning products or hand the keys to Blaze and hope they can make it happen for shareholders.
glta and dyodd
geodcan wrote: numbers and financials are very elusive for TNY and other pot companies it seems.
To me this seems highly irregular and of concern. Same with writing a deal for financing that puts control of our company at risk if we default.
So getting no financials or production numbers is concerning.
If that is the intention, how does it affect the shareholders who pretty much financed this whole deal which seems to have come together finally such that we should be able to make some profits.
It doesn't seem right to me to do such a significant deal at a turning point for our company.
The longer this drags on the more dilution will be inflicted and renumeration has to be taken care of or the players walk.
There are lots of options of re-introducing cbd or even adding alcohol for a popular beverage with alcohol category that I quite enjoy for convenience at picnics and such.
CSE monthly should be out by the 7th if figured this right but that last financial with no numbers is a new form of accounting that I don't understand.