3SOF

And while we are at this source. Here is some good news/bad news.

http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com/

Pentagon Preparing New MRAP Competition for EFP-Stopping Designs

DefenseAlert, July 2, 2007 -- The Pentagon is preparing to launch a new competition for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles capable of stopping explosively formed penetrators, effectively opening the field to new manufacturers in a race for a piece of the possible $20 billion-plus blast-resistant vehicle program that since January has been limited to a handful of companies.

chart update 

US Army eyes seven-fold armored vehicle jump
Mon Jul 2, 2007 1:54pm ET


WASHINGTON, July 2 (Reuters) - The Pentagon has cleared the U.S. Army to seek rush orders for up to seven times more specially designed armored vehicles to help protect troops in Iraq in a move that could be worth more than $20 billion.

"The Army has been approved for the purchase of up to 17,770 MRAP vehicles," Lt. Col. Carl Ey, an Army spokesman, said on Monday, using shorthand for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected replacements for the more than 20-year-old Humvee.

A push is under way to get to Iraq as many MRAPS -- which feature V-shaped hulls designed to protect occupants from roadside bombs -- as industry can produce through the end of next year, Ey said.


Prior to the nod from the Pentagon's high-level Joint Requirements Oversight Council late last week, the Army had been approved for 2,500 MRAPS.

The planned "one for one" swapout of "uparmored" Army Humvees could more than triple the overall Pentagon purchase, now valued at $8.4 billion for 7,774 MRAP vehicles, including 3,700 for the Marine Corps.

The high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle, as the Humvee is officially known, is a successor to the Jeep, a fixture of U.S. military patrols for decades.

Seven contractors are vying for MRAP orders after sending prototypes to military testers.


Navistar International Corp.'s (NAVZ.PK: Quote, Profile , Research) International Military and Government LLC has received the largest single order -- a May 31 Marine Corps $623 million deal for 1,200 Category 1 vehicles.

Force Protection Inc. (FRPT.O: Quote, Profile , Research) has received four orders to produce a total of more than 1,800 MRAP vehicles. It is partnered with General Dynamics Corp. (GD.N: Quote, Profile , Research)'s Land Systems business arm, which has received an order of its own for 20 vehicles through a Canadian unit in London, Ontario.

Also in line are BAE Systems Plc (BA.L: Quote, Profile , Research); Oshkosh Truck Corp. (OSK.N: Quote, Profile , Research); closely held Protected Vehicles Inc. of North Charleston, South Carolina; and Armor Holdings Inc. (AH.N: Quote, Profile , Research).

BAE is awaiting U.S. Justice Department clearance to buy Armor Holdings for $4.1 billion. Protected Vehicles is offering an MRAP it designed jointly with Israel's state-owned Rafael Armament Development authority.


Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made rushing the new vehicles to Iraq his top procurement priority.

On Friday, he said he was pressing industry to roll the vehicles out as quickly as possible, if necessary by going outside normal bureaucratic channels.

"For every month we delay, scores of young Americans are going to die," Gates told reporters.

Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, referred on Monday to the action by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, an arm of the military's Joint Chiefs, as a kind of validation of request from commanders in Iraq.

"The goal right now is to get started and you don't have to know what your end requirement is going to be to embark on an aggressive strategy to start to put vehicles, more vehicles, into the field," he said. (Additional reporting by Andrew Gray)

© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.

Bullish Engulfing.......
61.8% Fib retrace.......and a move to the north.
You would have to be out of your mind to short this thing when the Pentagon just approved 17,700 MRAPs be purchased, and approved a 1 for 1 Humvee replacement. And on top of that, MRAP contracts will be announced any day now. You short this stock when it's had an extended run, or when the fundamentals are collapsing, not now. Otherwise you're just rolling the dice.


Technicals
Percentage Gainer

Last Price Quote is:
-2.91%below 13-day MA
-4.93%below 50-day MA
RS Rating: 93 

Fundamentals
Key Data:
Market Cap (M): $1,404.85 
P/E Ratio: 55.36 
PEG Ratio: 1.23221 
Next Earnings: 08/14/2007
Last Analyst Rating: Overweight

Market reality looks good.

But this is the government and business. Business has submitted its proposals for maximum production for remaining Fiscal 2007. With three contenders already accounted for, the fourth of OSH/PVI still has a chance at a large contract like the other three.

And the DoD has enough money to buy every vehicle the four of them can produce in Fiscal 2007. And I believe have contracted for those vehicles already except for OSH/PVI. Meaning all the contracts have been priced in until Fiscal 2008. Or as Kramer says "Wait for it to be priced to perfection."

A manuver the DoD may use is apply for budget carryover and apply their remaining funds of Fiscal 2007 to vehicle contracts in Fiscal 2008. Or write contracts now for vehicles in Fiscal 2008.

But you are right the pot looks rich. 20 billion was over two years to fulfill the maximum number. The pot right now has 4 billion earmarked for 2008 and they are looking at making to its 10 billion mark or its half of the 2 year 20 billion.

So now the consideration is where between 4 and 10 billion will the number fall for 2008.

nice link:
http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/totals.asp?thisContractor=Force%20Protection

Here is one more interpretation of last week.

DOD agrees to pay for as many MRAPs as industry makes 

Aerospace Daily & Defense Report       
07/05/2007, page 04   
       
MORE MRAPS: The Defense Department's Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) has endorsed procuring as many Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles as industry can provide in fiscal 2008. DOD and military services are trying to "incentivize" companies to boost production while cutting the production timetable, according to Bryan Whitman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. He told Pentagon reporters July 2 that the JROC decision follows Defense Secretary Robert Gates' efforts to expedite MRAP fielding (DAILY, July 3). Leading House Armed Services Committee members criticized industry in January for not making MRAPs a higher priority. Earlier in Iraq operations, defense officials complained that industry was not throwing enough effort behind countering improvised explosive devices (DAILY, Oct. 19, 2005). Both efforts have turned into multibillion-dollar spending campaigns to provide solutions to warfighters. "We absolutely are not accepting (IED attacks) as a challenge that can't be defeated," Gates said during a Pentagon news conference June 29.

Support of what to look for next week. Definitly follow the link and look at the chart.

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/technicalanalysis/10366578.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

This weekly chart of Force Protection shows a stock that has gone from about zero to $30 in less than 18 months. Now that's fast! The money flow indicator shows that money outflows really began in January, but the stock kept rising in spite of that. However, the recent correction has broken the uptrending support line. I'd look at $20 as being the next line of defense. If that level breaks down, the 40-week (200-day) moving average is in play

this are the reasons why I am still holding FRPT with strong hands:

1)
Test Drive BoostsU.S. Marines' Interest In Cheetah Vehicle
By KRIS OSBORN

The U.S. Marine Corps may buy hundreds of Force Protection's Cheetah, an 8-ton Humvee-type, four-wheel-drive vehicle with lightweight armor composites and blast-deflecting technology.
The Corps' interest in the V-hulled, raised-chassis vehicle intensified after U.S. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway test-drove a prototype Cheetah at Force Protection's plant in Ladson, S.C., June 9.
The Cheetah would function as a smaller, more mobile version of the 16-ton Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles the U.S. military is beginning to buy.
"I'm excited about the latest addition to Force Protection's family of MRAP Vehicles, the Cheetah," Conway told the Marine Corps News, an internal publication of the Marine Corps, after the visit.
"If it proves itself through further testing, the Cheetah will offer the same survivability rates as its predecessors, but it's also designed to be relevant beyond Iraq. The Cheetah will be easier to rapidly deploy, as it will be much more compatible with air and sea transport than larger MRAP vehicles currently in production," he said.

Overseas Interest
The Marines aren't the only ones interested in the Cheetah; company officials said Britain, Italy and Turkey are also eyeing the vehicle. In response, Force Protection plans to build a factory in the coming months and is now weighing bids by two states.
"We are establishing a new production facility, where we will produce 70 to 90 vehicles in the fourth quarter this year, and be producing at a rate of 2,000 a year by 2008," said Mike Aldrich, Force Protection vice president.
Conway went to the factory, which has built roughly 600 Cougar and Buffalo armored vehicles now in service in Iraq and Afghanistan, to see how the vehicles are made and to thank workers for building them. He was so impressed with the Cheetah that he started calling his program officials.
Commandant Impressed
"The commandant's office called and said he has directed a lot of people to get serious about the Cheetah in a hurry," said a senior Marine Corps official with the MRAP program office.
The Cheetah vehicle is built for reconnaissance missions and faster-moving tactical, urban operations. At its top speed of 85 miles per hour, it also gets twice the gas mileage of a Cougar, another Force Protection vehicle.
"It will be much more adaptable to maneuvering in tight areas such as urban environments and it does well off-road. The Cheetah has half the weight of the Cougar with equal protection," said Aldrich.
The Cheetah's armor, which is intended to protect against up to 30 pounds of TNT, is designed, as is the Cougar, to accommodate add-on armor as newer composites emerge, said Aldrich. A prototype Cheetah has been blast-tested at Force Protection's test site in Edgefield, S.C., with 15 pounds of TNT within 25 feet, and other charges directly underneath the chassis.
"We set off a blast similar to an IED [improvised explosive device] under a minivan or pickup truck to show in a basic way what this kind of blast does to a regular civilian vehicle, then saw the Cheetah withstand the explosion," said company spokesman Jeffrey Child.
As an expeditionary force, the Marine Corps needs mobile, quick-to-deploy vehicles.
"We are excited about the compatibility it has for rapid deployment," said Marine Corps Lt. Col. Thomas Johnson, spokesman for Conway.

link:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2879605&C=mideast

2)
IV quotation ( from trustthetape; thanx buddy)
Impact of a Cheetah order on valuation

Well Marvin, with the Marine FINALLY expressing a sense of urgency to get on board with the Cheetah ("The commandant's office called and said he has directed a lot of people to get serious about the Cheetah in a hurry," said a senior Marine Corps official with the MRAP program office.) perhaps this is a good time to revisit some analysis we did nearly 8 months ago when you ask for my thoughts on the impact of a Cheetah order.

Attached is the analysis from last November when the stock was trading near $10 a share.  While much has happened since then, I still stand by the analysis and believe the next price targets ($34.47 and $42.79) will be challenged in the not too distant future - perhaps much sooner then many believe.  In addition, if the author of the article identified by Jolly-Llama is accurate and FPI produces 2000 Cheetahs in 2008 at approx $300k each, we're looking at another revenue stream of over $600m. Assuming they "only" produce 200 Cougars/month in 2008 that's another $1b in revenue and that leaves out Buffalos (at 10/month close to another $100m) and ILS.  All told, assuming everything comes together, 2008 revenue could approach $2b.  At 10% net profit that's about $3/share in earnings and a 20-30 multiple puts us at $60-90/share.

Given the demonstrated ability of this company to produce quality vehicles in large quantities, I'm confident that not only will the next price targets be exceeded (sans Cheetah) but that the Cheetah Premium of $35-40 per share will also be realized as the Cheetah goes from Prototype to initial production to mass production in the thousands in the coming years.

Here's the dated, yet very relevant, analysis from all the way back in November - seems like another life time:

I'm going to try and answer your question in a larger context, Marvin.  Hope you don't mind.  Just realize my eyes are foggy, my throat is sore and I'm still on a high from the Buckeye win yesterday so if my thinking is not clear perhaps someone here can offer their opinion.

Technical Price Targets
Setting the Cheetah aside, I'd run some Technical Targets some time ago based on a breakout above 8.52 (and a subsequent major consolidation such as the one we just had).  Recently, I updated those targets based on the new high of 9.43 (and the same major consolidation but from a higher level - 9.42 vs 8.52).  Here are my intermediate term technical targets:

8.52    13.36    21.19    33.86
9.43    14.83    23.57    37.71

It would appear that current and emerging fundamentals (without any consideration for the Cheetah) will support any and all of these price levels over time.   I suspect some technicians might have an opinion or two on these and I'd encourage them to opine.

Fundamental Price Targets

Fundamentally, the challenge is how to value the company based on factors such as:

* Trailing Twelve Month (TTM) revenue ($150m) vs production capacity/rates (approaching $500m annualized) and ILS (easily $50m in 2007 but more likely closer to $100m) vs a growing backlog (currently close to $400m and growing)
* Factoring in growth rates (Year over Year being 200% or so) and market positioning (becoming recognized as market leader in armored vehicle market)
* Factoring in partnerships (SPAR and BAE, GD emerging, AH still a possibility IMHO)

Well, we know the market valued FRPT trailing revenue at up to 4.2 times revenue (P/S ratio) when TTM sales were $100m, production capacity was around $200m ($50m per quarter as in Q2) and backlog was around $200m. The question then becomes, what multiple does the market put on growing trailing revenue as production capacity increases (both internally and thru partnerships) and the backlog grows to $400m (currently) and then to much higher levels as new contracts such as the MRAP materialize? This is the basic, yet perplexting,  question of how to express the relationship between TTM revenue, production capacity (or revenue potential both internally and with partnerships), and backlog (available future revenue) as some multiple of something (TTM revenue perhaps?). I guess the other factors in the equation is the impact of growth rates on the valuation and also the future profit potential of all this revenue, production, backlog. So, if $100m TTM revenue and $200m production capacity and $200m backlog is worth 4.2x TTM revenue, what is $200-225m TTM revenue (end of Q4), $400-500m production capacity and $400m-$1b+ backlog worth? Certainly at least but likely much more than 4.2x TTM revenue since the production capabity and backlog are growing so much faster than the revenue.  Even at 4.2x as TTM revenue increases each quarter from 150m (currently) to 225m (approx after Q4) to 250m'ish to 300m+, etc, etc, price targets start being hit.  Given the growth in production, backlog, partnerships and subsequent trailing twelve month revenue, I start getting price fundamental price targets that include numbers like:

         11.83
         16.49
         20.86
         25.93
         34.47
         42.79

All numbers reasonably consistent with the technical price targets.

Finally, Addresing the Original Cheetah Question

So, back to your original question of the impact on the price is the company receives a $1b Cheetah order.  We know McGilton said at the SHM that it will be produced "off site" in secrecy (with few people knowing the details).  I suspect that is for either security reasons (with the govt) and/or competitive reasons. The 10Q talks about getting the production lines up and going in 2007.  Therefore, we know this is something the company is planning for so there would be some consideration already given to production capability.  From a market perspective, I look at the Cheetah as a roughly $45b market (150k vehicles * approx $300k each and ignoring the downstream ILS revenue potential for the time being).  Even at 10% capture (or 15k vehicles) of this market, $4.5b is some serious revenue from just this one product line.

It seems we have to address the same questions as above to value this future revenue stream. Initially, the backlog would be $1b, production capability would be minimal and initial TTM revenue would be zero. So, certainly the market can't value it based on TTM revenue but rather on future potential revenue. Certainly it's not likely to be valued at 4.2 but something less than that.  Is it worth 1x, .5x, 2x backlog?  If we say .5 x contract that would be 500m or about $10/share.  Is that realistic? Conservative?  I've talked to some knowledgeable wall street types recently that felt such a contract would be fairly valued at 2x backlog or about $2b.  That would equate to $35-40/share (in addition to the current share price).   Regardless of the first order/orders, if we assume the FRPT eventually captures 10% of the overall available Humvee market then $35-40/share seems very conservative. However, the company has to first capture the first order and produce the first production vehicles, etc etc - in other words, walk before it can run.

Putting it All Together
If I'm even close and the existing business (sans Cheetah) is worth $25-40 in the not too distant future (from a technical and fundamental standpoint) and the Cheetah business has similar potential in the next few years (based on the logic of a $1b backlog) and even greater potential long term ($45b market),  the overall business becomes more and more attractive for investors as well as being a takeover target and triple digit stock prices are not out of the realm of possibility in years to come.

My Conclusion

Regardless of the immediate impact on the share price of an initial Cheetah order, it seems highly probable that there will be an initial order and then subsequent larger orders. Likewise, it's highly probable there will be larger and larger Buffalo and Cougar orders. How much larger and how soon remains to be seen but larger and in due time, nonetheless. In addition, it's clear that production capacity (both internally and through partnerships) is expanding and the combination of increased production capacity and increasing backlog will lead to increasing trailing revenue and higher stock prices over time.

Personally, this all goes back to my Investment Thesis for FRPT and the realization that this is a long term investment in a growth company and continued Due Diligence and patience will be rewarded. 

The one weakness I see now is all 2007 vehicle production may be priced in.

Remember the price slid last year waiting for next year's budget?

With deliveries of the Cheetah to begin in Fiscal 2008 or Q4 that would leave it out the remaining Fiscal 2007 budget money. Unless they can whip out a production increase before October, Fiscal 2008 it is.

But the good news about the 2008 budget of where between 4 and 10 billion dollars will next year be?

Defensenews.com
July 6, 2007

DoD Panel Approves $8.3B for MRAPs Through 2008                                     

By Kris Osborn

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the top DoD procurement panel, approved in early July spending $8.3 billion through 2008 to produce an unspecified number of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) as fast as possible.

"The final procurement quantity will be shaped by continual assessment of changing threat conditions, feedback from commanders in theater, and potential changes in strategic landscapes and assigned missions," said DoD spokeswoman Cheryl Irwin.

DoD sources said part of the reason for the uncertainty is that U.S. forces may not be deployed in Iraq in large numbers after 2008.

The JROC already has authorized the military to buy 7,774 MRAPs: 3,700 for the Marine Corps, 2,500 for the Army, 697 for the Air Force, 544 for the Navy and 333 for Special Operations Forces.

The $8.3 billion will cover these vehicles, and possibly more, Irwin said.

The Pentagon plans to buy a total of 23,200 14- and 21-ton MRAPs, a number that tripled in May after Army Secretary Pete Geren said his service planned to buy 17,700 MRAPs by 2010. In early May, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the service chiefs to make MRAPs DoD's top acquisition priority.

Battlefield commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as lawmakers, have called for more MRAPs.

U.S. Army Gen. Richard Cody, the vice chief of staff, said in late June that the MRAP push would continue through 2008.

"Sometime in 2008, we'll know, based on the commanders' needs on the ground, what the buy will be," Cody said. "I don't know how many we're going to buy. We have the plan for a one-to-one replacement the commanders asked for, but more important is to maximize the monthly production rate through '07 and '08 so we give the operational commander what they need."

Great work guys in terms of research you have posted.

A little concerned at the moment that we are being attcked there does seem to be a short term down trend and we have to break out on the upside of the triangle.

where are your sell signals kicking in.

At the moment i amjust a bit tetchy. Though i like the stock alot

I think there are two issues, retracement of the last 100 days because the next 100 days are in doubt. And continuation.

Continuation. The next 100 days are unclear because the competition has not been as public as FRPT, making FRPT an easier target.

Retracement? The trailing bull defends the 100 MA or not otherwise the bears could have it all. This retracement bounced from 15.50 before the rally brought it here and 20 was a battle. So yes taking shots at FRPT's 100 day record could send it into the teens again. Which is what I think the market wants so more people can get back in.

Meaning join the bears or gamble on whether the redistribution is done well enough.

I am looking at battleground 20 and the 100 MA before this heads back up. I am also worried about the 200 MA because the 100 MA is a well tested breaking point in the bear camp. Gambling will the trailing bull defend the 100 MA or 50 MA? Since now its flat.

thanks amstocks82:


The Real Story of Production Delays

When the government began purchasing Mine Resistant Vehicle types which later became known as Mine Protected Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, there were limited choices available.

Force Protection, Inc (FPI) had developed the Cougar and Buffalo but had almost no sales and were building them on a one by one basis. Building vehicles on a one by one bases is fine so long as the number of requested vehicles is low.

The military gradually increased the number of vehicles they were purchasing from Force Protection. The first sales of the initial Cougar went to the British. In 2002, the British purchased 8 "Tempest" vehicles from Technical Solutions Group (TSG). TSG was later purchased by the company that became Force Protection and Force Protection's business became that of making armored vehicles.

In 2004, FPI had only sold a total of 29 vehicles to the military. The military was purchasing very limited number of MRAP type vehicles from FPI and other vendors.

Unlike the Cougar and Buffalo, many of the other vendors vehicles suffered occasional casualties which is why those vehicles gradually became more in demand.

In 2005, FPI delivered 71 vehicles to the military and began to get contracts for larger numbers of vehicles. Therefore, FPI started the process of creating a regular production line for Cougars. During this time period, there were production and parts problems. As FPI grew in size, some of their suppliers were unable to support the production growth in a timely manner or did not prioritize orders for armored glass for these vehicles. Therefore, FPI began the process of getting multiple vendors to provide parts for their vehicles. They also increased the inventory of critical parts.

In early 2006, FPI completed staffing the new production line and by April 2006 they had reached target production of 20 Cougars per month. By mid 2006, FPI seemed to have solved their production and parts issues and were mainly producing ahead of schedule.

Later in 2006, the military announced the MRAP program which initially was going to provide 1200 vehicles and solicited bids for vehicles from multiple vendors. The numbers of vehicles were at this point sufficient to interest industry in developing new vehicles. Prior to the launch of the MRAP program, the military had limited options for purchasing MRAP vehicles due to the low numbers of vehicles that they were purchasing. The only company that had built an entirely new and upgraded MRAP vehicle was FPI.
The size of the MRAP program grew and so did the interest in building MRAP vehicles by other companies.

During the initial phase of MRAP testing, FPI's Cougar passed testing. Other vendors either delivered vehicles late in testing or like BAE took several iterations of testing, design changes retest and further changes before the vehicle passed.

The inspector general indicates that if the military would have provided the awards for military vehicles to other vendors, that they "might" have produced them. However, until the number of solicited vehicles was increased in 2006, other vendors of vehicles had limited production of MRAP vehicles most of which were much more expensive than a Cougar or Buffalo and less safe. It is not reasonable to believe that they would have invested the money and effort to improve their vehicles or increase production capacity if the military were ordering only 100 vehicles per year.

Force Protection got the orders despite initial start up issues, and intermittent production issues because they had the superior vehicle. The production problems are the result of typical start up issues, not corruption or incompetence.

The article suggesting that there was influence peddling or other reasons for the orders is not credible: http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-armored-vehicle-delays,0,7411825.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

The Cougar is the least expensive MRAP type vehicle that was available in 2002 to early 2006 and the safest vehicle available during that time frame. For those two reasons alone, the marines should be praised for purchasing those vehicles.

Currently, FPI and the joint venture with General Dynamics as well as their many production agreements with other companies such as Armored Holdings have positioned FPI as the current vendor that has the highest production capacity. If the military were to award too many high volume contracts to other vendors that might not yet proven that they can produce MRAP vehicles in volume and proven that their vehicle will be survivable in combat, then this would be a true tragedy and crime.

They believe everything they hear. But in reality there were no other producers. BAE prime contracts and co-produces the Cougar as the ILAV, General Dynamics produces the RG-31 but has all the contracts it needs and wants and is also late, the ASV has also all the contracts it needs and wants.

The Marines have been with and are still with FRPT. And all the production problems are because this is new production, as you will note the competition is having the same problems with their new production. Recently namely General Dynamics and PVI which will both be late by months.


http://iraqnam.blogspot.com/2007/07/report-finds-dod-awarded-mrap-contracts.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on schedule, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general.

The June 27 report, obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, examined 15 contracts worth $2.2 billion dollars awarded since 2000 to Force Protection, Inc., and Armor Holdings, Inc.

The auditors found several contracts issued by the Marine Corps on a sole-source basis to Force Protection even though it knew there were other manufacturers that might have supplied the vehicles in a more timely fashion.

The Marine Corps determined that Force Protection of Ladson, S.C., was the only supplier that could meet the urgent delivery schedule for the vehicles.

The inspector general's report, however, concludes otherwise. It says the company "did not perform as a responsible contractor and repeatedly failed to meet contractual delivery schedules for getting the vehicles the theater."

Read the rest at AOL News