RE:RE:Tinley’s cannabis drinks on the OCS tomorrow.cosinus180 wrote: Tny investors don't have a clue of order size, so a sellout doesn't mean squat until numbers are presented to investors.Remember those Beckett's drinks that sold out everywhere???Where are they?
smackthatask wrote: I've noticed a lot of shareholders posting pictures buying Tinley's in Canada over the weekend in the fb investor group. I wonder how long it takes to sell out on the OCS, First day, 1-week, 1-month?
I'm wondering how long it will take to restock OCS if Tinley's does fly off the shelves. Could be good numbers because Tinley's is Canadian initiated and I suspect a good portion of the shareholders are Canadian, so we might be better known and anticipated.
Keep in mind that we did lose first strike advantage with award winning product potential when the big players like Canopy cranked out a bunch of shyt skus (my opinion) as well as others to get them on shelves in a timely fashion.
Tinley's fortay is not timeliness or we were just unfortunate in our efforts to get going, at least by comparison to some who showed up late and beat us to the consumer. Hopefully we are ready for doing good business in Canada.
This is just a personal opinion on the licensing being held by Lakewood: If it is just a concern of something going wrong to transfer the license, that is one thing but because Tinley has footed the bill for the bottling facility and there is an agreement to transfer the licensing for a nominal fee, that should happen as expeditiously as possible. The question is what is a nominal fee? Hopefully a one time lump sum or some shares of Tinley to get Rick's name off the license as a posessor and on as an authorized signor for Tinley's.
It would be good for that to happen before Tinley gets a bunch of share appreciation from the market and would be good for Rick too, as he would probably get more cheap shares and the appreciation I expect when our virtually debt-free company makes a hard move to the black ledger.
Once Tinley clearly owns all of the moving parts, including the licenses, we can bottle under whatever name we want, but clarifying ownership and outstanding cost to make that happen is critical imho.
I want to see formulating, manufacturing and distribution clearly in the Tinley's name such that shareholders understand how the money should flow.
JMHO, but we are on the verge of showing some good numbers on volume and bottomline and if we keep with the original plan of using co-bottlers to expand to other States, the costs to do so should be minimal and we would be following suit on how Big Beverage expanded. Quick and cheap, take our recipe in syrup form and use other's bottling ability and distribution.
Or our management is getting the sense that some kind of triggering bill will happen to Federalize Interstate commerce for potpreneurs and we could supply somebody like Las Vegas or New York with product produced from our Long Beach facility.
To me this co-bottling being more profitable than bottling our own Tinley's for profit is sleight of hand, at least with what I see happening in Canada, where cannabinoid bottlers are getting huge margins for skus. If we can't sell everything we produce for Tinley's then co-bottling makes sense.
Let's see if our business plan is viable with Tinley's recipes before cranking up our own owned facilities in other States. Co-bottlng is fine until we hit full equilibrium with our Tinley's and if that isn't enough to use our own capacity then lets re-introduce CBD infused beverages that consumers are using for aches, pains, relaxation and sleep or Beckett's for the pure of heart and mind.
If we can't be a major marketshare grabber then we can still be a high margin boutique producer, provided we can come up with some winning skus.
glta and dyodd