I have worked for smaller, family-owned corporations and for larger, Fortune 500 corporations. There is NO DOUBT the processes can be different, much different.
Here's an example. I have had to fire a few folks in my career. I always hated it and it never really got easier for me -- no matter HOW much they deserved it. The first time, it was just me and the employee. He was an analyst and he had trouble getting his work done. Three strikes you're out, nice long conversation about it, and 'see ya later'. It was an amicable parting, he knew he was in the wrong. That was a small, family-owned company.
Next firing, a multi-division, bazillion dollar revs, Fortune 500 corporation. It was my fire, however, there were a DOZEN more people in the room than myself when it happened not including me and the woman I was firing at that time. Those dozen folks included internal and external counsel (i.e., attorneys), HR and who knows who else! I cannot even tell you the build up that occured to make that firing happen at a corporation of that size. Months. A few weeks prior to the actual firing I had been on a small, extended weekend vacation in Toronto and honestly, it was barely worth it as I was on the phone with legal issues nearly the entire vacation! The woman was only a 'manager', an OK level, but one of MANY in the corporation. I can't imagine if it had been a VP or the CEO! The manager was contentious, didn't take the firing well. The build up to the actual firing was to ensure that all our ducks were in a row so that the corporation wouldn't be subjected to any legal battles that we could not win -- even though in my opinion, the case was cut and dry. I would never let anyone go if that wasn't the case and my ducks are ALWAYS in a row!
So, my point is, if a manager takes so much legal effort, can you imagine trying to remove someone at a higher level -- particularly as the BOD is only 2 people (I would advocate for making the board larger ASAP). The more diverse and bigger the corporation, and the higher the position, it becomes much more difficult to get rid of someone in the right legal way. PNCH is not nearly Fortune 500 -- so hopefully it won't take THAT long to resolve this issue.
I do not claim to know anything about what is going on behind the scenes at PNCH. From an audience standpoint, it's all very bizarre. But we have to remember that it is a business matter and no matter how much we all want to know, there are times when it doesn't make sense to tell us.
I have always said Steve is between a rock and a hard place. He can't communicate everything, so he communicates some things -- and he gets ripped for doing that. If he says nothing, we're pissed. If he says something, but not everything we want to hear, we're pissed. If he tells us what is going to happen, and the timing of these things are beyond his control (as was the case with the timing of CC installations) and they don't happen when he leads us to believe they will, we're pissed.
Should he have known all the details of running the business, when JC is supposedly in charge of operations? Maybe yes, maybe no. If you have a president about to mutiny and other employees are with him, you think he's keeping you fully in the loop? JC seems to have held things close to the vest, by all accounts and by my observations. Those at the upfronts spoke highly of their relationship. We have photos posted that show them shoulder-to-shoulder, smiling. JC wasn't showing anything amiss at the upfront, not in front of shareholders anyway, from everything I've heard from those who went. They all came away saying they were a great team.
Isn't it JC's responsibility to make sure all affiliates stated are up and running? Isn't it his responsibility to make sure PNCH is streaming on filmon? The only one coming on here to state he is working on these things is Steve. What has JC said about these things?? At least Steve is DOING something. He's focusing on making sure the company is WORKING, while simultaneously having to deal with legal issues. What is JC doing, except putting out false PRs and communications (I'm the CEO, no wait - I'll now take your resignation, Steve --- WHICH IS IT?) -- proven FALSE as statements contradict each other! "false and misleading" is certainly not a good thing and is frowned up by the SEC as well as shareholders.
If Steve isn't communicating everything, JC certainly isn't either. JCs statements have been more vague and cryptic, if you ask me. I still don't know what his 'fraud' issues are -- other than a gripe he has with his personal employment contract -- and that should not be a public issue, nor an SEC issue, IMO. He did say who his attorneys were -- but failed to mention one had a potential conflict of interest. I want to know specifically (and I've asked repeatedly) EXACTLY what his issues are! Still haven't heard.
All I'm saying is let's be real here. Let's show a little patience and understanding -- even though it's frustrating to not have 100% of the details. And if you speculate, please let us know you are speculating. Some folks come on and act like they KNOW something they really do not.
