bosley
- 20 Feb 2004 09:34
bhunt1910
- 15 Nov 2006 08:36
- 22422 of 27111
PS S&M = Sales & Marketing - not sadism & Massochism!!!!
kimoldfield
- 15 Nov 2006 08:39
- 22423 of 27111
Tony, my daughter says she has been in The Richard Steele a couple of times, I think it must be the same one, although she called it the Sir Richard Steele? Kate Moss drinks there sometimes apparently so it must be for the really hardened drinkers like yourself!
kim
Tonyrelaxes
- 15 Nov 2006 08:39
- 22424 of 27111
BH
Maybe the chosen candidate upped his demands seeing the opportunity...
hewittalan6
- 15 Nov 2006 08:41
- 22425 of 27111
S&M director post not attractive now there is no chairman for executive vice.
kimoldfield
- 15 Nov 2006 08:42
- 22426 of 27111
I am probably wrong but I think maybe HW & IB walked rather than were pushed, would it not require another EGM to force them out?
kim
stockdog
- 15 Nov 2006 08:48
- 22427 of 27111
I assume that IB and HW are still employed by the company under their contracts of employment, otherwise I think the RNS would have mentioned they had left the employment of the company?? But clearly the strategic management of the company has now moved on from the early stages of these two taking the company down the road of IP development.
Perhaps they will remain board directors of subsidiary operations, perhaps they have been given notice and there will be substantial redundancy payments due.
I wonder where Philip Lovegrove stands in all this - I guess part of the new rather than ancien regime with MW, Clive Warner as FD and Terry Robbins as COO - plus new Sales Director?
Could this really have been a done deal pre-placiung without it being mentioned in the placing docs - bit irregular, but I suppose there is no proof of it. Or was it a much more recent confrontation, or simple self-realisation that they would not fit with the new regime?
Perhaps we cannot be told until their final deaprture has been fully lawyered.
SP ticked up on the offer if not the bid to start with. Now slightly down on the offer, bid holding at 1.65 in faced of a few PI sells - v. low volume so far.
kimoldfield
- 15 Nov 2006 08:51
- 22428 of 27111
SD I agree, I think they are still employed by SEO in some form.
kim
Tonyrelaxes
- 15 Nov 2006 08:54
- 22429 of 27111
We do not know they have gone, only no longer on main Board. We have seen HW being eased aside over recent weeks but I wonder about IB. Following HW being pushed he may have walked, or threatened to do so and the bluff failed.
Or IB may still be there but just in a technical role on the BioTec side. The RNS issued at 16.09 yesterday said "the Company has been informed by certain persons discharging managerial responsibilities that..". Nothing past in that, yet by the time that was issued the Board meeting referred to less than 30 minutes later was surely over and the Statement prepared.
The Chairman promised last Monday that RNSs would henceforth be clear and unambiguous !!
Tonyrelaxes
- 15 Nov 2006 08:58
- 22430 of 27111
But then again, did IB cock it up big time over the IP licencing that became aparent with SPhere?
Tonyrelaxes
- 15 Nov 2006 09:05
- 22431 of 27111
SD - snap !
The Prospectus tells us IB's Service Agreement had a 3 months notice and (interestingly, or is it standard?) "There is no provisions for compensation for early termination, although Mr Balchin may be entitled to submit a claim for breach of contracts should the service agreement be terminated early by the Company."
HW's said "No notice period is specified"
kimoldfield
- 15 Nov 2006 09:12
- 22432 of 27111
It is possible that SEO's M&AA restricts the number of Directors to 6, and that the company wants to appoint 2 new Directors so that 2 had to step aside?
kim
stockdog
- 15 Nov 2006 09:18
- 22433 of 27111
6?! - hardly likely is it?
anyway, just change the M&A to accommodate more if you want them
kimoldfield
- 15 Nov 2006 09:28
- 22434 of 27111
The M&AA can only be amended on majority vote SD.
kim
stockdog
- 15 Nov 2006 09:32
- 22435 of 27111
So . . . have an EGM. Oh they had one last week and forgot to include it, silly boys.
kimoldfield
- 15 Nov 2006 09:37
- 22436 of 27111
They would not need an EGM, the Board would be responsible for a change to M&AA, but my thinking is that they may not want too many Directors "Too many Directors spoil the company" and all that stuff..........oh yes, they already did!!
kim
Tonyrelaxes
- 15 Nov 2006 09:38
- 22437 of 27111
No mention of Director changes in the press?
I would have thought it would have been reported in the FT at least - especially as it was the 'founders' of the modern SEO.
ths
- 15 Nov 2006 09:49
- 22438 of 27111
The Press are probably waiting for the follow up appointments/announcements..
saves paper and ink (in keeping with the theme)
kimoldfield
- 15 Nov 2006 09:50
- 22439 of 27111
Another possibility, HW & IB's replacements first have to resign posts elsewhere due to conflict of interest and RNS' have not yet been released for them? Or just a case of "I'm not playing if those two are" Step aboard Mr Bond and Miss Moneypenny, we need you NOW!
kim
robinhood
- 15 Nov 2006 09:54
- 22440 of 27111
just hope that this departure is not caused by those two screwing up one of the potential contracts!!!!! FT last week mentionned that macdonalds was about to enter into a contract with seo on starwrap. How come nothing is on the table yet?(after all if FT know the story then this event has to be imminent)
Sharesure
- 15 Nov 2006 10:04
- 22441 of 27111
I think it was inevitable that IB and HW had to step aside given the lack of progress and destruction of the mkt. cap. over the last 6 months. The emergency Placing so soon after the market was tapped for money before is reason enough for the City's lack of confidence. It might want the FD's head as well. I am interested in seeing who will be appointed to the Board since that will give a good pointer as to whether the institution tyhink SEO is a long term investment or they are in it for a quick turn round and then sell.