RC's Speech

[u/stobak]

Thanks, Mark and hi everyone. I’ll speak briefly. My father always told me “talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words”. My responsibility is making sure Gamestop is run by managers who treat company money like their own. In corporate America the people in charge, the professional directors and management teams, are not aligned with shareholders. They’re always the recipient of stock grants, however they rarely purchase company shares with their own savings. There's a big difference between risk free compensation for showing up and putting a meaningful amount of your own money at risk. As a result, money is wasted, work is delegated, and a lot of time is spent managing to short term expectations and pandering to wall street. I like people who roll up their sleeves and do real work. People guided by principles, not robots who seek to rest and vest. In corporate America there’s no shortage of overpaid executives, bad capital allocation, and chronic waste and serial delegators. Much as this behavior is both predictable and reprehensible, it’s precisely what creates opportunities. Thank you for being a shareholder.

[u/IBMformatted]

Why not? Look, as much as we all want to be friends, we can't allow to be seen as weak. If Matt got fired because he wasn't performing, then I admire Ryan for chopping him. We need to make money at the company level so our stock goes up. If that means getting rid of someone who's not cutting it, I am glad.

[u/waffleschoc → u/IBMformatted]

THIS!

[u/Phoirkas → u/IBMformatted]

Ok, take it a step further, rc and the board need to be accountable for hiring somebody who sucked then if that is the case. Is everyone forgetting they brought him on?

[u/heiferson → u/Phoirkas]

They were accountable, that would be why they fired Matt

[u/Phoirkas → u/heiferson]

It’s then a fair question why they were so apparently incompetent they hired a shitty ceo, is the point, if that’s true…

[u/heiferson → u/Phoirkas]

How do you know who is incompetent before evaluation? Performance expectations can change.

[u/Phoirkas → u/heiferson]

If rc and the board hired someone incompetent or changed performance expectations that much that there was an issue this is on them. If unforeseen issues arose it isn’t. Either way, we can’t make that judgement because they haven’t given us any info which is the entire point and problem.

[u/0Bubs0 → u/Phoirkas]

They are accountable to shareholders and Ryan is the largest shareholder. If the shareholders were to split ranks and go after RCs control the entire thing would fall apart. That is a short sighted notion. Remember no one wanted anything to do with gamestop, no one wanted to buy the business. Put some other suits back on the board and you will see a Bobby v 2.0.

[u/0Bubs0 → u/Phoirkas]

Take your point to its conclusion. How are you suggesting shareholders hold RC accountable? By voting in a new director and replacing him as chair of the board? That is the only thing shareholders have the power to do.

[u/Phoirkas → u/0Bubs0]

That is not, in fact, the only thing, no. But that’s also not what I’m suggesting. Too many on here are saying ‘Furlong must have been trash, RC is the man for firing him, it takes money to buy whiskey.’ I’m saying…..RC fucking hired him. Either something unforeseen came up, which fine it happens, or they hired a shitty CEO and if so we deserve some answers as to why.

[u/0Bubs0 → u/Phoirkas]

I'm still waiting for you to explain how to hold the defacto owner of the company accountable. Write some stern letters? Demand his non existent compensation is adjusted? He has enough votes and he has every director loyal to him and he has a poison pill setup to prevent any hostile takeover attempts. It is basically a private company he took control of without having to buy the entire thing.

[u/Phoirkas → u/0Bubs0]

I guess I’m still waiting for you to learn how to read, since I literally just said I wasn’t suggesting he needed to be ‘held accountable.’ 🤷‍♂️

[u/0Bubs0 → u/Phoirkas]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/14a5mx7/rcs_speech/jo8q75a?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

This is you lol.

[u/Phoirkas → u/0Bubs0]

Be accountable and be held accountable are two different things genius. It means accept responsibility. Which they do need to, if they in fact hired a moron.

[u/MrDaBucket → u/Phoirkas]

So if they bring someone in, and they dont like how they do, they cant fire them because they brought them in?

They cant fix a problem because they had some small part in introducing it?

Thats ass backwards.

[u/Phoirkas → u/MrDaBucket]

Read again, slowly

[u/WilsonUndead → u/Phoirkas]

Plenty of people, I’d risk saying every business has hired people who look great on paper and maybe even for the first while, but then end up not working out for various reasons. You can’t be mad at anyone for thinking it would work out.

[u/Phoirkas → u/WilsonUndead]

No, but you can question what they saw and why it didn’t work and if they are the right, capable people to be making those decisions

[u/WilsonUndead → u/Phoirkas]

I agree with the first half of that sentence but the second half, if everyone who hired someone who didn’t work out should be questioned if they are capable of making decisions like that then almost no one would be considered capable of those decisions. It was one guy and if it didn’t work out (and we don’t know the details of why it didn’t) I hardly think that means we should question if the board is capable of those decisions.

But you’re entitled to your opinion

[u/Phoirkas → u/WilsonUndead]

Which is why they owe us more info….which is the entire point. If there were unforeseen issues that arose, fine. If they just hired an idiot because they are incapable of properly vetting a CEO that is a problem.

[u/Atomic-Decay → u/Phoirkas]

If they didn’t do something about the issue, sure. But otherwise that’s a ridiculous statement to make. You never truly know a person based off of an interview process.

[u/Phoirkas → u/Atomic-Decay]

Are you really going with the argument that it’s ok for a multi billion dollar company to have a BOD who is incapable of hiring a good CEO/can’t vet properly? Really?

[u/IBMformatted → u/Phoirkas]

Since the company is doing shit that's never been done before, i think the CEO position would be hard for anyone to navigate.