RE:RE:WTF!Seems you're contrary on just about every topic, except when it comes around to your buddy S-l-o-w as S*** Eddie.
Four years into the job, it's kind of self-serving to continue blaming your predecessor for the long list of bad things that happened on your watch, isn't it? Yes, Rossi was a bad hire and a poor leader. Yes, S-l-o-w Eddie had no idea what he was stepping into. And, yes, whatever the circumstances, S-l-o-w Eddie is responsible for more value destruction than Rossi. Just look at the tale of the tape.
I would add to S-l-o-w Eddie's list of "drawbacks" that his response to every setback is the same: He starts reflexively chirping out enthusiastic congratulations to all and then does nothing until months after the next calamity strikes, when he defaults to squealing, "Great job, everybody!" His mind, or what might be said to remain of it, is plainly on his side-hustle, which is managing the Cinnabon stand in the Seaway Mall, Welland, Ontario.
Special mention to director Steve "Shellshock" Gregory, who has been watching mutely for a dozen years, showing up to collect his director's fee, and daydreaming about pot roast for tonight's dinner.
You're right about Ian. He seems determined to squander his estate on this money-pit "drug company," and on producing movies that no one will ever watch. Well, it's his money -- or it was. Perhaps the University of Toronto music faculty will still get a slice of whatever might be left, but it's likely to be a couple of dozen crates of unsellable testosterone. Put that in your woodwinds and make something beautiful.
Contrarian333 wrote: I honestly think that with Ian it has been some combination of 1. wanting to "win" against the other Ukranian businessman who is no longer with us, 2. wanting to deliver to the the minority shareholder a success that he could feel good about (yes, I know - it hasn't been - you know what they say about pride) but by continuing to be the financier of last resort of the business and ending up with 88% of the equity and as its primary lender they have ended up with an upside down cap table that is difficult to finance in a "normal" manner at the best of times.
It is publicaly stated that the strategic plan requires an incremental $40m USD to get to self sufficiency. I don't think the original strategic plan would have required that amount but the difficulty detailing reps had seeing doctors during covid pushed the breakeven further out than one might have anticipated.
It doesn't seem like Ian is able or willing to fund the "gap" thus the strategic process. I wouldn't be surprised to see a "new" strategic plan that involves the sale of assets and/or non traditional financing or some combination thereof and a smaller funding gap.
I think a whole range of possibilities exist from sale of assets, last minute Ian funding, potential use of CCAA, etc etc.
As far as the critisism of management, in particular Ed that goes on on this Board, I don't necessarily buy into it. I think Ed inherited a bunch of problems from previous management. although I think his lack of public capital markets experience is a drawback.
Some time ago I characterized the ASP equity as a binary option which apparently nobody quite understood. They get financed and the equity has torque. They don't - and its some version of lights out at least for the minority shareholders.
I think that is still the case and the outcome of this strategic process will either create continuing optionality for shareholders OR be the last nail in the coffin for minority shareholders.
This is my dispasionate view of the situation. Back to sleep I go!