country bob->...lots... :) Well said @country bob. I do not...

country bob->...lots...

Well said @country bob. I do not agree with most of that, but it makes a real change for someone to reply to one of my posts with a well reasoned repudiation, as opposed to a frothy pile of abuse aimed at me personally.

I will not pull apart everything you said because my position on IWG, both as a technology company and an investment, is already well documented. But I will make a few pointed observations.

country bob->"The clever people at Telstra and Bluetech seem to think this has potential. H will argue a) they aren't clever and b) there's no downside for them to promote it..."

I do not argue point A. I think you are misinterpreting the argument I made about the likes of Telstra not really investigating or developing expertise on the products they resell. I was not saying they are not clever enough to do so, just that there is no reason for them to do so. I do argue your point B though.

country bob->"I asked her [Kathryn Foster] why she would take this gig..."

Did she mention whether the $80,000 per year IWG pay her, or the 7,000,000 unlisted options they will give her, swayed her opinion any?

I have never quite known what to make of her appointment. They talk her up as a former top Microsoft executive, but searching microsoft.com for her name yields nothing, and nor does a site:microsoft.com search at Google. There is just about nothing on the internet about her, other than the consultancy roles she has landed at iWebGate and Class. Still, I am sure she is very good.

country-bob->"Since her appointment there have been numerous other appointments."

Yes, a new chairman ($60K per year plus 7.5m pending options) and Kevin Greene ($100K per year plus 10m pending options). Do you know, I think I am starting to see some reasons why these people are getting involved, other than their boundless enthusiasm for the company!

Mr Pig->"In your humble opinion, what are the prospects of a takeover offer?"

Not great. What would be the reason? IWG have no sales momentum or customer base worth speaking of. They have no products which people are clamouring to buy and no cash pile to get hold of. They have no brand and no intellectual property of any note.

On the other hand, the people might be worth something (although looking at Linked In they only seem to have sales drones left) and they are clearly building a sales channel which might be worth acquiring by a company with products that actually sell. A competitor company might see value in wiping them out, I suppose. Anything is possible, but with a market cap still absurdly high at $40m I would not hold your breath.