MOU2 and MOU3, page-664

"I am refuting the claim that Sentry WILL sign up in March and that one MOU WILL also be signed."

____________________

It wasn't a claim....it was an opinion. An opinion based on a full assessment of the factual Sentry situation (which is something your posts always lack).

The facts are....

1) Sentry jumped into this trial on a 6 month exclusivity basis looking for "first mover" advantage over other similar sized FP firms.

2) Sentry's CEO himself has not only taken the lead role in overseeing the entire operation, but has publicly expressed his desire to get the whole thing happening as a priority during his tenure.

3) Recently the number of Sentry practices involved expanded from 6 to 15 which to most fair-minded people says they are keen to keep things moving by getting more offices on board and familiarised with their future methodology of business.

4) The 6 month trial period ends on 19th March at which time the Sentry CEO (he's the one running about with a huge s**t-eating grin supervising everything he can lay his hands on while adding more practices to the IAM trials) and his board will have a choice to make. Such choice seems to a fair-minded person to have already been informally made.

5) As for the MOU.... while no definitive claim was made by IAM management that MOU2 would be settled in Feb, there was an expectation of such, whether rightly or wrongly. "Everything is progressing" (accompanied by yet another s**t-eating grin by certain IAM management) says to me that the Feb. board meeting went ahead as planned and our management await a decision which is clearly not in their hands..... however the balance of likelihood in the eyes of a fair-minded person would be in favour of proceeding.


Now I realise that a person like you will look for any angle you can find to cast doubt on each of the above points, however you must recall I was talking about a fair-minded person.

That leaves you out. Right ?

That's my factual basis for my expressed opinion. Time we heard yours.... what "facts" lead you to believe otherwise ?