I agree. Ordinarily a CEO who'd woefully missed production...

I agree. Ordinarily a CEO who'd woefully missed production targets and drastically downgraded the capabilities of a company's flagship product and had nothing to show for 2 years and millions spent, would be sacked. But Peter Coker has been given what amounts to a promotion! Is it because of a job well done? Is it possible that all the above, that we view as failures are actually what he was appointed to achieve? and it's all part of a master plan that we're yet unaware of?