Tinkerbell
Researcher
Watcher of the Skies
Posts: 143
|
Post by Tinkerbell on May 30, 2017 10:00:07 GMT -5
Actually, I believe the Aegis debacle may have added to the 'last straw' however, there was a need for a more aggressive 'in your face' CEO like Mike. He knows what Afrezza is and he will spit fire at anyone who tries to belittle it's importance within the armamentarium of treatments available to people battling their diabetes. He's already said Afrezza can be used in many ways to support excellent BS control. He has NOT said Afrezza should replace all mealtime insulin. He's learned over the last year where Afrezza's place in the management of diabetes can be inserted and yes, it is a powerful possibility for diabetics to consider however and in the end, Afrezza will reveal itself to the individual diabetic who will use it as they deem appropriate for themselves. That is how any new drug gains traction over time and with personal experience. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on May 30, 2017 10:01:52 GMT -5
I don't believe for a second that Matt was fired for performance issues. The Aegis yellow card fiasco may have been a mistake but it turned out to be an insignificant blip in the big picture. If Matt was being fired for performance issues, the board would probably have done this prior to the recent issuance of golden parachutes for the executive team. It does seem unusual that no reason was given for Matt's exit. This could be related to personal reasons including a health issue, a forthcoming opportunity that still relates to MNKD or one of it's partners, an outside opportunity or something else. Matt has done a good job in a very difficult situation in a short time but this announcement is all about the future, not so much about Matt...IMHO
|
|
|
Post by kc on May 30, 2017 10:01:56 GMT -5
This has been in the works. Matt was not fired. Those two are not mutually exclusive. I agree that it had probably been in the works for a while going back to the DeSisto failure. Matt wanted the CEO role and there was no obvious replacement for DeSisto so the BOD let him have it, after all he was a known quantity. Matt has failed in the CEO role though and the BOD had to replace him which they have. Matt is a good technician, but a poor strategist so as a wartime CEO he will not succeed. As I said in a post a while back we need a wartime CEO and I think that is what we get with Mike. I think this is very positive move. He is inexperienced, but that is not necessarily a bad thing since his role is to lead the fight back rather than get into the operational side of the company (Rose is more than capable of dealing with that). I disagree with you that Matt failed in the CEO role. He did a great job and brought us from the depth's of the great abyss. He started with nothing on the day after the Sanofi notice in Jan 2016. Great Job Matt. We owe him respect for what he accomplished and helping to put MannKind in a better place. It didn't happen as easy or fast as shareholders would have liked but he did help building a team. Nothing came easy.
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on May 30, 2017 10:03:23 GMT -5
Without delving further, at its root, this seems a case of the Alpha male dominance. Can the Alpha really sell? We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on May 30, 2017 10:03:40 GMT -5
There's always the possibility that this is the prequel to taking MannKind private. Unfortunately the easiest way to do that would be a bankruptcy...
|
|
|
Post by kc on May 30, 2017 10:04:16 GMT -5
After the Hakan mess and SNY bailing out I thought who would want to take on the job of CEO of a ship that had just sunk? Desisto bailed because it was obvious this was a no-win situation unless a rabbit could be pulled out of a hat. There were no rabbits in the hat. Matt took on the job. Was he in over his head? Yes, but I give him a lot of credit for what he did accomplish and kept us on life support. I think he deserves our gratitude and not bashing. Desisto did not bail. He had an enforceable Not to Compete agreement.
|
|
|
Post by seanismorris on May 30, 2017 10:05:30 GMT -5
Those two are not mutually exclusive. I agree that it had probably been in the works for a while going back to the DeSisto failure. Matt wanted the CEO role and there was no obvious replacement for DeSisto so the BOD let him have it, after all he was a known quantity. Matt has failed in the CEO role though and the BOD had to replace him which they have. Matt is a good technician, but a poor strategist so as a wartime CEO he will not succeed. As I said in a post a while back we need a wartime CEO and I think that is what we get with Mike. I think this is very positive move. He is inexperienced, but that is not necessarily a bad thing since his role is to lead the fight back rather than get into the operational side of the company (Rose is more than capable of dealing with that). I disagree with you that Matt failed in the CEO role. He did a great job and brought us from the depth's of the great abyss. He started with nothing on the day after the Sanofi notice in Jan 2016. Great Job Matt. We owe him respect for what he accomplished and helping to put MannKind in a better place. It didn't happen as easy or fast as shareholders would have liked but he did help building a team. Nothing came easy.
The value of my MNKD stock says Matt failed. You can't spin this any other way.
|
|
|
Post by rockstarrick on May 30, 2017 10:10:28 GMT -5
Those two are not mutually exclusive. I agree that it had probably been in the works for a while going back to the DeSisto failure. Matt wanted the CEO role and there was no obvious replacement for DeSisto so the BOD let him have it, after all he was a known quantity. Matt has failed in the CEO role though and the BOD had to replace him which they have. Matt is a good technician, but a poor strategist so as a wartime CEO he will not succeed. As I said in a post a while back we need a wartime CEO and I think that is what we get with Mike. I think this is very positive move. He is inexperienced, but that is not necessarily a bad thing since his role is to lead the fight back rather than get into the operational side of the company (Rose is more than capable of dealing with that). I disagree with you that Matt failed in the CEO role. He did a great job and brought us from the depth's of the great abyss. He started with nothing on the day after the Sanofi notice in Jan 2016. Great Job Matt. We owe him respect for what he accomplished and helping to put MannKind in a better place. It didn't happen as easy or fast as shareholders would have liked but he did help building a team. Nothing came easy.
I agree KC, Things were pretty bad when Matt was appointed CEO, Matt did what he needed to do to keep the lights on, and for that, we should all be grateful.
|
|
|
Post by akemp3000 on May 30, 2017 10:10:45 GMT -5
There's always the possibility that this is the prequel to taking MannKind private. Unfortunately the easiest way to do that would be a bankruptcy... Running low on bad scenarios to suggest is yet another good sign for the company
|
|
|
Post by babaoriley on May 30, 2017 10:11:46 GMT -5
Whereas you could make the argument that Matt failed, I think he inherited a losing hand, and faced a very tough uphill battle due to the cash situation, and just about anyone would have failed at that point.
|
|
|
Post by gamblerjag on May 30, 2017 10:15:30 GMT -5
Remember Matt did the great job of hiring Mike which I believe will change the Co. forever. CEO is not for everyone. Wish Matt well.
|
|
|
Post by nadathing on May 30, 2017 10:15:34 GMT -5
After the Hakan mess and SNY bailing out I thought who would want to take on the job of CEO of a ship that had just sunk? Desisto bailed because it was obvious this was a no-win situation unless a rabbit could be pulled out of a hat. There were no rabbits in the hat. Matt took on the job. Was he in over his head? Yes, but I give him a lot of credit for what he did accomplish and kept us on life support. I think he deserves our gratitude and not bashing. Desisto did not bail. He had an enforceable Not to Compete agreement. Great excuse to get out of the mess after SNY bailed. He didn't come back after his "non-compete" was up did he?
|
|
|
Post by therealisaching on May 30, 2017 10:16:24 GMT -5
There's always the possibility that this is the prequel to taking MannKind private. Unfortunately the easiest way to do that would be a bankruptcy... I dont read this news leading to bk. You'd need an experienced financial person to lead the company through that process.
|
|
|
Post by nadathing on May 30, 2017 10:17:08 GMT -5
I disagree with you that Matt failed in the CEO role. He did a great job and brought us from the depth's of the great abyss. He started with nothing on the day after the Sanofi notice in Jan 2016. Great Job Matt. We owe him respect for what he accomplished and helping to put MannKind in a better place. It didn't happen as easy or fast as shareholders would have liked but he did help building a team. Nothing came easy.
The value of my MNKD stock says Matt failed. You can't spin this any other way. The stock was tanking long before Matt took the helm. The ship was already sunk when Matt took over.
|
|
|
Post by slugworth008 on May 30, 2017 10:18:50 GMT -5
Wow and friggen double wow - And right liane?? I didn't remotely see that one coming either! But right on !!!!
|
|