Again, not trying to belittle or antagonise, but the childish allegation was to do with comparing sourcing and announcing as secured a $10 million 'strategic investment' with a financer that couldn't pay with arranging to sell a washing machine to someone off Gumtree who turned out to be a tyre kicker.
Just trying to engage here on the level, I mean no disrespect and hopefully it doesn't come across that way.
You do have a tendency towards "straw person fallacy" arguments on here, to be honest - creating these exaggerated positions and then arguing against them as opposed to the actual point being made.
To run with your very imperfect analogy above, it is actually more like:
1. You ask your uncle to sell your washing machine for $300.
2. Your uncle never gets the money from that buyer, but doesn't tell you for 3 weeks from the Saturday.
4. Your uncle comes to you on that later date and says "turns out they couldn't pay, but I've arranged something else".
5. You say "great, thanks! Do you have my $300?"
6. He says "no, I haven't sold it yet, I need more time. And I beat the washing machine around a ton in the meantime. So it's worth quite a bit less - I'm hoping to get $100 for it, even though it's now only worth $70".
7. You say "wow, that's going to be difficult to get someone to pay 30% more than it's worth, and I really need that money".
Obviously that is a flawed analogy, but far closer to what has happened and why holders aren't happy.
The issue is not all on DT - you keep responding as if he is personally the issue. Of course Triton are not blameless.
But there is a major issue that our company chose a specific financer (a 'strategic investor' in the company, remember), announced that funding, relied on it, it never came through, and we are now capital raising at a massive discount and having to extend that raising because the shares are worth less significantly than they are trying to raise at.
This isn't a DT problem. But how can you not be frustrated at the company not sourcing this funding from a reliable source? The fact it has fallen through is on everyone involved. Triton if they pulled out, and DW8 if they sourced funding and decided to go with a firm that ultimately pulled out.
I like DT - lot's of people do. He has a successful history in business, and he has vision and a plan. He presents well in conferences, and clearly has a good grasp of the business and industry. But it looks like that vision and plan have been quite poorly executed ever since paying massive overs for Kaddy.
But in investing, trust is everything. It's not even entirely in his personal control, but there have been things said that were interpreted (and he himself has since walked back) which have not helped.
And look where we are. Currently, the company is not performing well. And he is the CEO of the company. But you'd have to say that everyone involved has made some poor choices, or at the very least allowed the market to misinterpret what they are actually doing as poor choices.Again, there are a few "straw people fallacies" in here.
DT is not a fraud, or a snake, or trying to bilk people out of money for personal gain. And it isn't even close to say "everyone" is saying that (putting the obvious trolls to one side, of which this forum has and has had many).
He is the CEO of our investment. He has a legitimate business and a legitimate vision. And it is seemingly being mismanaged currently. This is on everyone in management pulling a salary.
It also happens in business. It's frustrating for investors, but it's reality - some businesses don't pull off what they intend to, for factors inside and outside their control.
If they try and fail, what can you do - that's the game of investing! That doesn't mean we can't pick apart decisions and debate whether they are seemingly erroneous, desperate, or a bit of both.
As to your point on eBev - it's largely irrelevant. Maybe they will flop. Maybe they won't even ultimately go to IPO. Maybe they will and succeed. But simply because a company with a similar idea or in the same industry intends to IPO, that doesn't mean that DW8 is therefore a sustainable model long term.
Basically, you seem to be saying no criticisms in here can be true because a similar beverage company is in the process of an IPO.
That is, I hope you see, obviously flawed logic: eBev can IPO (successfuly or otherwise) and criticisms of DW8's model and recent decisions can be true at the same time. There is no inconsistency in those propositions occurring together.
Of course, this can still all be turned around.
I'll be tuning in to the webinar as I always do. I'm really interested to hear what DT has to say. This obviously is not easy for him, and he would be hurting to. It is his vision, after all.
But I'd really like some clarity going forward. Forgetting the merits of DW8 as a whole, it's difficult to see a path out of this situation that doesn't at best involve insane dilution that would essentially mean that existing holders that are well underwater, and there are many, will likely never break even.
Expand
(20min delay)