RE:RE:CommunicationOK, to be blunt, I think the wording in September never should have referred to a contract but should have been advanced negotiations. The wording at that time made it sound, like a number had opined here, that it was done and then the lawyers from both sides were kicking it around. Lawyers don't kick sales into a lease, I don't think. Anyhow, it is done, and Peter has to learn something from this as the institutional investors and analysts may not be kind when it comes to assessing information provided by the company.
SmiteWorx wrote: The alternative is that leasing has been on the table for a very long time, and that key information has been withheld from stockholders for several months or more. Just speculation of course. .
canyousayiii wrote: I would summarize that there is a communication issue. Peter is talking terms that many of us are not properly interpreting. For example, I don't know how you can have a draft contract in place in September that you are trying to finalize but then shift from sales to lease. That change in the business proposition is huge in terms of contract terms so I don't see how it could result in a tweaking of what has been drafted. In my view, the "contract" in September was not as advanced as some of us may have interpreted it and the business structure was still being negotiated. Now we have to wait to see what the actual deal will be, and yet again, we have the "hell of a lot more money" that was tossed out there. Make sure your starting point is not Uncleron's for interpreting what this means!