05-29-2016, 02:22 AM
I got a sense from this board that before this deal announcement, people would have voted to keep this management and not change to Phil. Yes, there were many who were displeased, and some who loved Phil, but my sense was that most people felt things were at least okay and they were leery of Phil.
Since the deal announcement, there is an overwhelming displeasure (okay, "hatred) with the current management, and if this board is indicative at all of the larger shareholders sentiments, there is a decent chance management will get voted out, with their deal then falling through.
So my question is, why did management announce the deal now? Why not wait till after the meeting, and then only have to win one vote, not two? People have said this deal must have been cooking for a long time. Why not wait a little longer? Is there something big here that I am not seeing in regard to the timing of the deal announcement that in any way benefits current management?
Since the deal announcement, there is an overwhelming displeasure (okay, "hatred) with the current management, and if this board is indicative at all of the larger shareholders sentiments, there is a decent chance management will get voted out, with their deal then falling through.
So my question is, why did management announce the deal now? Why not wait till after the meeting, and then only have to win one vote, not two? People have said this deal must have been cooking for a long time. Why not wait a little longer? Is there something big here that I am not seeing in regard to the timing of the deal announcement that in any way benefits current management?