pach

LSE rules state that full year results have to be published within 120 days of the year end, in tadpoles case last friday the 120th day, how would the auditors of signed of the accounts if the SB money had been delayed slightly and nothing to replace it.
I can't accept tad could have said to the auditors its ok honest we are about to sign a $2.8m deal which will cover the shortfall and we will get $600k as soon as it is signed, ok David we'll take your word for it but you have to promise you will sign this deal otherwise we are guilty of mis - represenataion to the LSE.

All, FYI.

An OEM deal of this size will have been in the works for months. Not less than two months, IMHO. The announcement fails to say who the OEM is, which would indicate that the whole thing has not yet gone through approval at the other end. The contract will contain a clause (they always do) that all publicity must be agreed prior to release by both parties.

This announcement smells a little of a hurried release by TAD who have just got a signature but not yet got approval from the other party for PR.

MM - only partly agree. The rns states that a payment has been made.

Yuff - you miss my point - I was not concerned with the auditor's issue - simply with the need to negotiate a deal with Gem. The two are related but the accounts (for the last year) could have been signed off without any mention of/ or signing of a deal with Gem (for this year). Clearly, therefore, the OEM payment is not sufficient to keep Tad afloat - it also needs Gem - what black-hole have they fallen into? But I hold and await further events - best of luck to all holders.

Three points:-

1. The contract has been signed and must, therefore, have been approved by the OEM whether or not the PR wording was agreed before the RNS. The customer's name wasn't mentioned, so no problem.

2. The accounts from last FY could have been signed off for the results announcement, but the auditors could not (presumably) have agreed that Tad had sufficient funds to continue its business without the GEM facility being in place.

3. The point about the auditors being the crucial factor in the requirement for the GEM facility is well made. That facility would also provide the necessary assurance to the OEM that Tad was in a position to fulfill its side of the contract.

pachandl:

A payment would typically be due on signature. Most OEM agreements have gagging clauses which specify no publicity until mutually agreed.

So they signed, got the on-signing payment and still can't say who it is. Perfectly normal.

There are deals which have permanent gagging clauses as well.

MM - I accept your point - I was simply saying that as a payment had been made there must have been a signed contract - you had previously implied that this might not yet have happened (your comment ..." which would indicate that the whole thing has not yet gone through approval at the other end"). Anyway, we seem to both agree so no problem.

Indie - thanks for your response - I assume you are correct although you do use the word "presumably" in pt 2. I am hoping to speak to someone with auditing experience next week to confirm this - although I am sure you must be correct on pt 3 anyway, so it is pretty much academic.

A bit disappointed that we finished in the red - but that's Tad for you (or their MMs).

Posted by RT on another BB, gives you a few hints about the future. This is not the full post but it is a fair description of the state of play.

M


This brings me onto the future.

Negativity is a good thing. I have learnt to accept it. It is healthy and last week there was no one more negative on Tad than me.

I stated that I wanted to see revenue. An RNS with $$$ attached. It is something that all of the Tad supporters have craved since we bought ETI. This is the most significant development in the ETI era we have had. It has proved once and for all that ETI can produce and sell multiples of the product. It seems likely that it is the Wyse embedded deal that was stated earlier (or yesterday, I forget)

It is also rumoured that MS have had better than expected results from the streaming trials. EDS & MCI must be close although I think April is a target date??

I have heard a brief rumour that I cannot substantiate that Veritas is another Telco that ETI may have done a streaming deal with. A while back I heard that there was a deal as big as SB was supposed to be.

Has anyone heard this?

Whilst it is still possible for Tad to drop I reckon yesterday was a major turning point.

Any views?

ML
I think the company on iii being discussed now is verizon.

Cheers Yuff. Verizon, Macrovision or BT i dont really mind who it is
as long as they buy Streaming from us.

M

pachandl: You're right. That's what I meant to say. Apologies.

Pach,

I said 'presumably' because, although I know the auditors have to assert that the company is an on-going 'going concern', I had no idea what cash was available when the results were announced.

Frankly, not being an accountant, I would not have had much certainty even if the (then) current cash position were known. The question of pay-offs to the various departed staff could easily pox up the most finely-tuned financial analysis as could the precise timing of any purchases against the signed contracts.

Do we assume a new PR company is desirable, necessary and cost-effective?

Indie - I assume your last comment was rhetorical!!!!

RNS Number:2185I
Tadpole Technology PLC
04 February 2005



Tadpole Technology PLC (the "Company")


Director Shareholding




The Company was today informed that, Mr Steig Westerberg, an executive director
of the Company, sold on 2 February 2005 475,000 ordinary shares of 1p each in
the Company ("Ordinary Shares"), at 8.0395p per share. The Ordinary Shares were
sold to satisfy tax payments payable by Mr Westerberg following his conversion
of Stream Theory options and warrants into Tadpole Ordinary Shares.



Following this transaction, Mr Westerberg has a beneficial interest in
21,233,261 Ordinary Shares, which represents approximately 5.66% per cent. of
the Company's issued ordinary share capital.



4 February 2005

Clearly Mr S has very little cash in his bank if he has to sell shares to cover a 40k tax liability. It does amaze me how easily Tad management shaft ordinary shareholders. Let's hope he does not have to sell any more to cover his monthly household expenses.

pachandl, no one should mess about with the Inland Revenue and paying a capital gains Tax bill. If he has a 40k capital gains tax liability then he must have done very well out of the conversion, that means he is still at least 60k in profit. Now all TAD shareholders needs is to see some profit on investments. Lets hope TAD get more than just the one substancial contract in 2005!

In my view, TAD with Endeavors and Stream Theory combined, they now don't have any more leaway for giving out feable excuses as to why they do not win new profitable contracts or the need to raise more working capital and dilute the value of existing shareholders capital.

Agreed Legins - my comment about his tax liability was simply to express surprise that he had to sell Tad shares in order to meet it. I assumed he had other assets (cash) and that, assuming he was optimistic about the future, he would hold all of his Tad shares in order to maximise any capital gains.

HI PACHANDI //MR S STILL HAS APRO/26000000 SHARE/OPONS TO PLAY WITH////

Bristle - let's hope Mr S does not get any more tax demands in the next few months ( or, come to think about it, decides to buy a yacht, car, go on an expensive holiday, buy a chalet in Switzerland etc etc).

sice hp vanished i no longerget the emails of news or ivestor thingies....is there somewhere new to register for these? its a lot quicker to acess an email on my geriatric pc than search MAM news.

Sorry Rod but HP does not seem to have been replaced yet. I try and post all of the RNS's and news that i come across.

M