gcduck / Re: TPL gets $8.74M = SALES COSTS!
in response to
by
posted on
Apr 12, 2011 11:10AM
Yes, and there's always a reason that my daughters can't seem to keep their rooms clean too. Every report there's a new justification from the company and from posters.
And perhaps you need to review the math again. Out of $8.85M in fees collected, $8.74M is to go to TPL! That's 98.8%! Not 50% or 55%, etc.
And despite how the 10q and the M.A. phrase the part about reimbursable third party and "other costs", the FACTS ARE that both Moore AND PTSC have both SUED TPL in an effort to get an "accounting" of the money spent. Obviously, there are questions as to how and what TPL is spending this money on. And despite Gloria Felcyn's assurances that they were "comfortable" with TPL's books, less than a year later, they turned around and sued TPL in part for that issue.
You may be comfortable with an ever growing EXPENSE side of the equation that seems to swallow up the revenue side almost entirely, but I'm not. Furthermore, essentially, the shareholders' only line of defense of abuse of funds consists of 3 people. Flowers, Johnson and Felcyn. Considering what has gone on with respect to BOD salaries, cash payments for "efforts", failed acquisitions, and ever growing expenses, etc., who's 100% comfortable that these people are straight dealers? If they aren't, who would blow the whistle on them?
That's not meant as an attack on their integrity, because I don't know them, but the facts are the people who were paid to make an agreement with Leckrone, and the current Interim CEO are the only ones overseeing the agreements / expenditures of MMP revenue on our behalf. They clearly are comfortable taking as much for themselves as they can get, so the fact that they're allowing nearly 99% of the MMP revenues to go to TPL in one form or another coupled with their past performance, doesn't give me warm and fuzzies over their dedication to fiduciary responsibility on our behalf.
Without transparency, without improvement, and with "settlements" that PAY the people you're suing, rather than the other way around, I certainly don't think the "well that's to be expected" mentality is the right one. To each his own.