Ann: CEO Succession, page-124

You reward undermining and utterly disloyal behaviour.

It's happened before with ADO. Good people are head kicked. Like Alan Studley. You were happy to destroy that man's career when he saved the company and found a buyer for Diasource. John Hurrell likewise set up the company on a different course and hired the expertise to change the company structure, and trade names from GC's wildly optimistic and unrealistic framework and his fav Mix n Go, and had the vision to not weigh the company with too many internal hires down, but to seek external expert advice as needed.

For this he also lost his job. Pilloried and insulted at the most memorable AGM I have ever attended.

There's no shame from any of you about what you did, either! Worse, you haven't learned from it.

There are other examples but you guys don't like to look back, it's Mr Magoo territory in here.

We have posters who admit to voting for Trump and don't see there may be something wrong with their judgement.
I got it wrong they say, but they don't analyse exactly where the fault lies with them so they're free to repeat their errors.
Trump was so easy to pick as a fraud.
It's not exactly sophisticated investing is it?

I see the dead hand of GC in all of this. His stuff ups have left the next incumbents to him, and most recently DT as CEO and Chairman with very little margin for error. Still they've managed to raise capital with elan. I must admit to being amazed at how they managed it, and they convinced the right people because they had a vision that was and remains, convincing.

And I see another divided Board as GC used to say, as if he owned it. Though nobody will admit it, it's entirely simple logic that if you have people who are familiar with and close to the development process, not alerting, not being part of it, they are setting up the CEO and Chairman to fail.

They blame DT's ego? Or is DT too intelligent to make them feel comfortable so small minded people that they are, they set him up to fail?

I've seen it time and again in other contexts why not here?

In all KEY and essential respects the DT as CEO and the Chairman succeeded.

But to small minded people who want to feather their own nest, it's entirely possible indeed probable that standing back instead of warning and participating was an opportunity too good to miss for the ex Roche crowd. These Roche guys aren't geniuses they're plodders. GC was always in the bosom of the massive company that Roche is, he had no clue how to monetise a truly innovative IP asset. NONE.
Apart from this I'm sure DT doesn't suffer fools and pretty sure he would have been scratching his head at MS's inclusion on the Board.

IMO. From reading the room here and in other places many times before.