Share
4,007 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 132
clock Created with Sketch. 06/03/16
19:29
Share
Originally posted by insaf
↑
Jamesph1, if you note in my posts I have always state that BB as the ceo was fully responsible for the demise of ton. period. I am not defending him or promoting him. this is a reality. Having others being held accountable doesn't exonerate or diminish his shortcomings. However to say that he has no credit in the rise of a company sp is the reverse of the same question u posed of recognising form in running companies into admin. Therein lies the contradiction. the principle is contradictory. ask yourself this - why did KNL not rise to 90 c or mns or many of the other stocks. the pitch or narrative can make a product look good - sometimes it correlates other times they don't. BB sold ton as if it was the next syr. in fact it was promoted as the best and biggest. a super pit. it created a hype. was it ethical moral legal. we are not discussing that. all we know is it achieved its purpise. the attractiveness to certain investors meant it fed into the hype. now there was a good reason for the narrative as it had initial success. however it seems the product didn't materialise. is this BB'S fault? I have no spec knowledge but it seems reality was different to potential. then the narrative had to change to biggest and cheapest always in bold typing. u still can't blame BB for this as it was out of his control. what he was in control was capital management. this is where he and the board failed miserably. however as a salesman he managed to promote ton to a level that enabled the hype. how can one dismiss this? so do we give any ceo any credit. look at syr - u could say if the resource wasn't as assumed it wouldn't be as successful. people in the speccie sector understand that no matter how well u promote a product the FA has to stack up. it seems it didn't and hence a shift in strategy. this is the game for all companies. all executives primary objective is to preserve the company through spin - No different to politicians. my point has always been he has a certain skill set that can help set up the sp for a ride. that is critical in an Explorer as like ton it enabled capital to be raised. ultimately however the results need go deliver. it seems it didn't. out BB's control but was he potentially stubborn or blind to not not recognising this by trying to make it work? it seems so. in the process it seems by delusions they ran the company dry. that is my take. the point is he is employed in another company now. they know about him better than us. what it shows is that they liked the way he handled aspects of ton's rise and feels comfortable with controlling the rest. I wouldn't trust him or any ceo. however I will watch as I know as a ceo the sp of stocks have flown for a st. I am hoping to capitalise pure n simple.
Expand
Honestly mate ..... If KNL sat right next door to SYR at that point in time and had the same BOD inplace as they do now they would not have traded @ 90 ......
