Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Second Wave Petroleum Inc SCSZF



GREY:SCSZF - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by idleSpeculatoron Jul 31, 2004 9:17pm
135 Views
Post# 7766904

RE: Cym, are you sure there are 8 LIVE?

RE: Cym, are you sure there are 8 LIVE?Hi Spinner, you were not around the agm before last when NR's went out claiming systems were live when they were little more than installed / testing. They didn't go live for many months afterwards. As we get paid by transaction, live implies income the NR's created a totally false impression of future / current income. There were a lot of very unhappy shareholders who made it clear they didn't want to be lied to like that again and threatened to take action if it did. Earlier this year we were told 5 of the 6 intended TT/SB systems that were being worked on were live. Yet it transpired that some of these were still putting most of their business through the old systems on which we do not see income. We have heard little since, we just know Markham are working extremely hard. Frank's now claims there 8 live, a huge step forward for the compnay, exactly what the investors want to here, yet no NR? I find it incredulous, and given the companies history, and Franks in particular, it needs backing up or retracting imo. I don't want shareholders to be misled, I don't want the compnay being put at risk of lawsuit, and I don't want Markahm being put under pressure to deliver what has been claimed to be already true as they are already under a lot of pressure. I would love to see Franks claim be true, love to see a NR confirming it, and you can bet I will call every single compnay to double check for myself, becuase if it is true it's fantastic news. And if it is, I will be the first to apologise for what I said. But it is not a lie when I say "I don't beleive it", it's a beleief based on a great deal of exp[erince and observation of this compnay over 5 years. Idle
Bullboard Posts