I listened to DAL's recent presentation. Overall, I was impressed by DAL. I may have to reconsider my earlier comments on him. Perhaps he is CEO material, but if and only if SGA and the "SGA Affect" is 100% neutralized. I doubt this will happen. However, IF it did AND if DAL was really given control, he may be alright. So for now, I'm reserving judgment on this point. Now let's talk about the following question.
Question for DAL: Approximately 52% of CRY's revenues come from tissue related products. Specifically, how much pre-tax free cash flow was generated from tissue related products for CY 2009? Same question for the first 6 months of 2010? For this purpose, start with total tissue sales and then subtract off ALL allocated fixed and variable expenses (ignore taxes).
DAL talked about tissue revenues being about 50% of total sales. He did not say that tissue revenues generated "ball park" 7% of net cash flow. Get it folks, the tissue doesn't generate much in the way of cash flow. That's why SGA and DAL always seem to talk about revenues. Instead of discussing cash flow facts, they divert us to a revenue discussion.
Tissue does have some positive attributes, and DAL did discuss them. But that is for another email.
The real question for all of us right now is what did the judge rule on, how did he word his ruling, and what affect is it going to have. This may be important.
Question for whomever: If BioFoam is such a wondrous product, as SGA has stated, and they plan on company growth coming from BioFoam, and it's been for sale about six months now, why doesn't CRY say anything about sales or sales projections for BioFoam? Is there anything there, or is the horse named BioFoam just temporarily stuck in the starting gate?