RE:RE:RE:RE:Voting DayHow are you so certain he wasn't part of the reason for the deal? I think I have a very good idea of what a public company CFO's job/role and input is, and it strikes me that it's too simplistic for you to say it was all David Harris and that Tim Watson had nothing to do with it. As far as I know, Harris was fired for sinking the share price, it said that he left due to a complaint. It could have been a non-business matter--we will never know. CFOs have tremendous inputs into the models and strategic plans. Tim was also an ex investment banker, so I find it hard to believe that he had nothing to do with the decisions made to acquire WGL. To be clear, I'm not saying TIm was the sole cause of the drop in share price, but if I were a betting man, I'd say he was part of it and shouldn't be rewarded. His comp was $450k increased to $477k. For the lower $450k price, in the current Canadian market, I wouldn't be hard pressed to find a CFO that could do a better job.
B1gkatt wrote: I am about sick and tired of all you posters who want to make Tim Watson the scapegoat for the drop in SP last year. Even assuming that was due to an objectively bad deal to acquire WG (a question on which the jury is still very much out) do you really think the responsibility for that deal lies with Watson? Have you no concept of what a CFO's job is, and what it is not? It was David Harris who pushed that deal, and it was the Board who drank his Kool-Aid. If you have any evidence that Watson was complicit in cooking the books to hoodwink the Board, then bring it forward. Otherwise, accept that the man responsible has been fired and that we have a new CEO who seems to have a rational plan to use the WG acquisition as a springboard to grow the company and, one day, perhaps start raising the dividend again.