Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: The prevailing argument seems to be

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Wed, 27 Jun 12 1:14 AM | 86 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 08622 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 08620 by DigSpace)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Hi dig,

I think the equation works this way.

1. The company has cash needs or it will go under. This may be because Wave isn't doing a great sales job, or the demand isn't there, or whatever. But it is what it is.

2. SS wishes to persevere with the TC idea and he wishes to keep his job.

3. For SS, dilution makes less difference as he makes a fortune in cash. If the company does well eventually, he'll be fine as well. Same for the board.

4. Wavoids see that the choice is between on the one hand insolvency & failure, and on the other dilution. The latter is preferable.

5. Wavoids also want to pursue the TC idea and think the risk of proper oversight is that SS won't be able to do so.

6. Wavoids perceive they are pursuing their interests in supporting SS.

7. So it isn't a polar thing - life versus being thrown under the bus. It's a lose a little bit in return for keeping a large proportion sort of equation.

8. The problem is that Wave plays this game over and over. So folks find that their large portion is dwindling, while SS keeps getting paid. And meanwhile, from a strategic sense, SS acts as if the long run never counts down. There's always a new product to develop. Old products don't die, they just cease being talked about.

9. As you know, I recently decided I don't think SS is the right person to lead the company. He seems to me to have shown a consistent inability to develop a product which sells in volume and/or an inability to market the company's product set. He doesn't seem to me to be a CEO. More a strategist who reports to a person that takes responsibility for the business.

10. I thought awk made a mistake about the board also. But if he believes what he does, I don't see why he shouldn't argue his case. However, I thought the wavoids collectively were rather limp on this issue.


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: The prevailing argument seems to be
By: DigSpace in ALEA
Wed, 27 Jun 12 12:17 AM 		Msg. 08620 of 54959

I acknowledge that I was being adventuresome with specific reference to awk, and perhaps in a way that falls outside the rules of this board in the specific assignments I was making (although personally, I was going with dim as opposed to corrupt) and was undoubtably using this board as a clearing house for notions that I find few if any other venues for ... so to be more clear:

in response to:

#msg-728760

and this:

#msg-728776

I offer that, perhaps fear as awk says, OR perhaps management and the BoD doesn't give a flying monkey and is perfectly pleased with throwing round one of the shareholders under the bus as they, of course, are not a member of that set. I expect them to take a share in round 2.

Given that I find that to be visible proof-in-evidence, those that say otherwise may well be considered shills or dim.

I overplayed shill, underplayed dim.

An important basis to me of either point is the significant influential rallying to keep the status quo as championed by awk and his lapdog (deliberate or not), Snackman.

If you don't like debt and you voted for Bush I'm going to have some words.

« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next