(Total Views: 1680)
Posted On: 07/06/2022 10:01:01 PM
Post# of 148878
A few notches backward on my resume I had a job that grew from one region to eventually encompass two. At the time of the expansion I was asked if I wanted to take on the extra territory. As a guy adept at wielding a large sword (hey ladies), I was comfortable taking on the extra work. But what I wasn't comfortable with was the disruption to the commission I was supposed to make.
So I did what any smart person would do and I asked for a guarantee during the first six months of taking on this new territory. Turned out to be a wise move as my goal attainment dropped to 50% simply by adding this new, underperforming area.
Which brings me to my point.
If you're a candidate for the role of President and CEO of Cytodyn, and you've probably signed an NDA to look under the hood, wouldn't you want some guarantees built in to your contract? Or shit, wouldn't Cytodyn want to make their new candidate comfortable knowing that a fuck-ton (medical term) of change was on the way?
Thanks to the NDA or your due diligence, maybe you know there's a very strong plan in place to partner or get bought out. Maybe your offer is to be President only at first, allowing for this deal to take shape and a shot at CEO or something else entirely. Maybe you're just not a dummy and you want to plan for every possibility.
Wouldn't you want a guarantee that you'll at least be covered for 6-12 months should the company be bought out and your position becomes redundant?
And another thing...
Why give this highly sought after, thoroughly interrogated, perfect in every way candidate you've spent six months looking for...only a six month contract of employment with a fantastic severance package?
Google the typical length of contracts given to company Presidents or CEOs and you'll see 2-5 years, with 3 years being the most common. But ok, Cytodyn is gun shy and still taking antibiotics from the burn associated with NP's reign. Sure, ok. But six months?
Google also spit out this tidbit in one of the first links I found:
Without a legal agreement in place, an executive has no particular right to severance pay. However, a company may choose to pay severance in the event the employer
Is attempting to downsize
Is closing a plant
Is subject to a merger or acquisition
Is trying to incentivize early retirement
Is attempting to negotiate an out-of-court agreement with a terminated employee in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit.
Hell, the only thing on that list that IS a realistic possibility for CYDY is being subject to a merger or acquisition. This doesn't definitively mean a damn thing, of course. But this whole contract + severance language + GSK employee-led publication about mTNBC referencing Leronlimab + need for a cash infusion + apparent disregard for our low share price + deliberate strategy of not PR'ing certain newsworthy events + Samsung being generous AF + one whole entire bottle of J Lohr Pure Paso.....
I think you're picking up what I'm putting down.
And if you're concerned about how a 3, 4, or 5x buyout could occur that actually resulted in an amount you wouldn't break your keyboard over, consider this:
What if it starts as a partnership for mTNBC or NASH or coffee mugs, and there's a big cash infusion from a legit big pharma company to move this thing forward. The price moves quite a bit higher and we end up settling in the $5 range when it's all said and done. Well now our little 3, 4, 5x number starts to look a little more reasonable. Might not pass the vote yet, or maybe it would. I don't know, I'm but a mild to medium sized shareholder. But my point is that GSK (or whoever it might be) gets to help restore credibility (puke) of Leronlimab via a partnership, and their published paper, and all the other right moves Cytodyn seems to be making lately with (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) nobody's help. Then, after the share price has risen and the GSK investment community is much more familiar with this miracle molecule, GSK moves in for the purchase at a multiplier that all of a sudden looks like a goddamn steal at $31.25/share (to borrow from Pitt over on YMB).
Or maybe it's the pure paso talking.
So I did what any smart person would do and I asked for a guarantee during the first six months of taking on this new territory. Turned out to be a wise move as my goal attainment dropped to 50% simply by adding this new, underperforming area.
Which brings me to my point.
If you're a candidate for the role of President and CEO of Cytodyn, and you've probably signed an NDA to look under the hood, wouldn't you want some guarantees built in to your contract? Or shit, wouldn't Cytodyn want to make their new candidate comfortable knowing that a fuck-ton (medical term) of change was on the way?
Thanks to the NDA or your due diligence, maybe you know there's a very strong plan in place to partner or get bought out. Maybe your offer is to be President only at first, allowing for this deal to take shape and a shot at CEO or something else entirely. Maybe you're just not a dummy and you want to plan for every possibility.
Wouldn't you want a guarantee that you'll at least be covered for 6-12 months should the company be bought out and your position becomes redundant?
And another thing...
Why give this highly sought after, thoroughly interrogated, perfect in every way candidate you've spent six months looking for...only a six month contract of employment with a fantastic severance package?
Google the typical length of contracts given to company Presidents or CEOs and you'll see 2-5 years, with 3 years being the most common. But ok, Cytodyn is gun shy and still taking antibiotics from the burn associated with NP's reign. Sure, ok. But six months?
Google also spit out this tidbit in one of the first links I found:
Without a legal agreement in place, an executive has no particular right to severance pay. However, a company may choose to pay severance in the event the employer
Is attempting to downsize
Is closing a plant
Is subject to a merger or acquisition
Is trying to incentivize early retirement
Is attempting to negotiate an out-of-court agreement with a terminated employee in an attempt to avoid a lawsuit.
Hell, the only thing on that list that IS a realistic possibility for CYDY is being subject to a merger or acquisition. This doesn't definitively mean a damn thing, of course. But this whole contract + severance language + GSK employee-led publication about mTNBC referencing Leronlimab + need for a cash infusion + apparent disregard for our low share price + deliberate strategy of not PR'ing certain newsworthy events + Samsung being generous AF + one whole entire bottle of J Lohr Pure Paso.....
I think you're picking up what I'm putting down.
And if you're concerned about how a 3, 4, or 5x buyout could occur that actually resulted in an amount you wouldn't break your keyboard over, consider this:
What if it starts as a partnership for mTNBC or NASH or coffee mugs, and there's a big cash infusion from a legit big pharma company to move this thing forward. The price moves quite a bit higher and we end up settling in the $5 range when it's all said and done. Well now our little 3, 4, 5x number starts to look a little more reasonable. Might not pass the vote yet, or maybe it would. I don't know, I'm but a mild to medium sized shareholder. But my point is that GSK (or whoever it might be) gets to help restore credibility (puke) of Leronlimab via a partnership, and their published paper, and all the other right moves Cytodyn seems to be making lately with (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) nobody's help. Then, after the share price has risen and the GSK investment community is much more familiar with this miracle molecule, GSK moves in for the purchase at a multiplier that all of a sudden looks like a goddamn steal at $31.25/share (to borrow from Pitt over on YMB).
Or maybe it's the pure paso talking.
(31)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
