So this is a family business that is based on the father's pioneering work in research, and it goes public, and the son (who has grown up in his dad's research lab) is positioned in the company and allowed to grow into his current CEO spot. Big deal. There are many companies with similar stories.
Your previous statements take the tone that Gerald isn't qualified for his CEO position, and that his father is the ONLY reason he is CEO, while ignoring Gerald's strong educational background, his personal investment in the company with his own funds, and his 5 years in lower positions within the company. I'm simply pointing out that there's more to the story than your previous posts implied. Of course we all win if the company succeeds, but that can be said of any investor in a family business that goes public, regardless of whether the CEO is a family member or an outsider.
I don't agree with your view that Gerald isn't qualified for CEO. I feel he is uniquely qualified and is surrounded with lots of talent and experience to guide him in his role. I think it unfair and a bit naive that some here would bash Gerald for some of the mistakes made, and not hold the advisors and board equally accountable for those decisions.
NEWS FLASH ... Gerald is not acting alone here in the decisions made or the strategic direction the company is pursuing. The only way to never make a mistake is to do nothing, but that's not an option here, is it?
Here's a link for armchair CEOs who feel their knowledge and experience in running a biotech start-up company would be beneficial to the company.
http://www.amarantus.com/site-info/careers
Your previous statements take the tone that Gerald isn't qualified for his CEO position, and that his father is the ONLY reason he is CEO, while ignoring Gerald's strong educational background, his personal investment in the company with his own funds, and his 5 years in lower positions within the company. I'm simply pointing out that there's more to the story than your previous posts implied. Of course we all win if the company succeeds, but that can be said of any investor in a family business that goes public, regardless of whether the CEO is a family member or an outsider.
I don't agree with your view that Gerald isn't qualified for CEO. I feel he is uniquely qualified and is surrounded with lots of talent and experience to guide him in his role. I think it unfair and a bit naive that some here would bash Gerald for some of the mistakes made, and not hold the advisors and board equally accountable for those decisions.
NEWS FLASH ... Gerald is not acting alone here in the decisions made or the strategic direction the company is pursuing. The only way to never make a mistake is to do nothing, but that's not an option here, is it?
Here's a link for armchair CEOs who feel their knowledge and experience in running a biotech start-up company would be beneficial to the company.
http://www.amarantus.com/site-info/careers
