Ahh the town square is an interesting place although its predictability subtracts somewhat from might otherwise be good entertainment.
It's not too hard to see that Mr. Lange ought to have done his job a different way and perhaps this included elements of competency - I don't know - nor do any others here for that matter. Monday's experts are everywhere. And for all the knowledge it surprises me that they couldn't see this coming.
The one key thing, whilst there are, undoubtedly, other 'things' that I think most anti Lange posters miss in their posts is the model of corporate governance.
Lange was CEO and, presumably, his activities were overseen by the board. It is the board that should become the focus of posters angst. While not wishing to sound trite, if it's not the board then who is too blame? Does one blame shareholders? After all what's the point of shareholders if they don't attend meetings or vote, i.e. have a presence? I think it's a shared thing. The board let Lange have his head and the shareholders, if representative of those here, sat around and applauded him. Whose to blame?
It didn't seem too long ago that Mr Lange was very much revered on this site and he could do no wrong - surely most can remember the over effusive and gushing posts that heralded his arrival from Schulumberger? I was probably one of them. I can also point to many here who were also CL fans. From memory some posters here said that he would lead NMS to the heights of Worley Parsons proportions. It was wistful then just as it is now! The point - who could say at the time what they might have achieved? Just as no one could say what position they would be in come January 2011. E.g. one poster here had SP predictions as a part of their signature - nothing wrong with that but don't be surprised when it doesn't eventuate.
Things change and change rapidly it would seem. From corporate king to reviled former CEO. Surely posters cannot seriously entertain the notion that a small company with lofty aspirations has come unstuck (they weren't the first and wont be the last) and that just one person is to blame? Well I suppose one can but to expect others to entertain that delusion is asking just a little too much. From what I know of corporate policies he can't sign cheques of his own volition - someone countersigns. That's my point - to simply blame CL is to miss the broader point.
CL dreamed big, acted on it and fell on his rear end. If there is anyone here that 'bet the house' on a small company, untried management and an industry with high barriers to entry then, unfortunately, you have only yourself to blame. As hard a pill to swallow as that might be it was your bet and one done, I can only assume, free of duress.
NMS Price at posting:
8.4¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
