No more Twinkies

[GameTime]

The company needs capital to survive. Tell the source of capital you cut $100 million in expenses (including payroll/benefits) = GOOD.  Tell the source of capital you just lost the CEO because we cut his $750,000 salary to $500,000 (instead of raising it to $2million) and he/she jumped off our potentially sinking ship = NOT GOOD

a company cant find a capable CEO for 500k a year?

[VinBucFan]

The company needs capital to survive. Tell the source of capital you cut $100 million in expenses (including payroll/benefits) = GOOD.  Tell the source of capital you just lost the CEO because we cut his $750,000 salary to $500,000 (instead of raising it to $2million) and he/she jumped off our potentially sinking ship = NOT GOOD

a company cant find a capable CEO for 500k a year?

HECK NO, not even close, not a company with $3bn in sales(?), a massive union issue, huge brands but dated equipment, and a looming bankruptcy.  I think its a private company too, so no stock option etc.  Hell, they are lucky they could find a CEO that would inspire confidence for under $5 million.

I f that doesnt work think of it this way, I dont know the exact number but Hostess needed, I think, in the neighborhood of $200 million in immediate capital AND someone to manage all of the above.  That means that they only made about a $1.5 million investment in a CEO to get in the neighborhood of $200 million in capital. Would you give me $1.50 to get $200, when you on the verge of being BROKE?   999,999 out of 1 million sensible people make that investment (or more).  Its just that when you want to make it appear outlandish you dont charcterize it as I just did you scream "THEY GAVE THE CEO A 300% RAISE!!!!!!!"

By the way, I dont think it is the same one who got the raise, may be, but you dont just need a "capable CEO" you need a specialist like this:

"Rayburn took over as Hostess' CEO and chair in March of this year, just a few days after he'd been hired as the company's chief restructuring officer to oversee what was then expected to be a bankruptcy reorganization. Rayburn had been with Kobi Partners LLC, a restructuring advisory services firm based in Winston-Salem, according to reports. Rayburn had taken on some pretty high profile restructuring jobs before, including serving as chief restructuring officer for WorldCom, which a decade ago was the biggest U.S. bankruptcy filing in history"

EDIT:  Right on cue, from tonight's report on the mediation impasse:

"Court filings showed  that the company is asking for permission to pay $1.75 million in retention bonuses to 19 different managers as an incentive for sticking around during the liquidation process. Hostess Brands CEO Gregory Rayburn has publicly blamed the unions for the company's demise.

The U.S. trustee, Hope Davis, an official appointed by the Justice Department to protect the interest of creditors, objected to this idea, filing a motion on Monday which argued that Hostess officials "have failed to demonstrate that the proposed bonuses are true incentive bonuses and not disguised retention payments."

Hmmm, why would Hostess have to pay "capable" executives retention bonuses??

[CBWx2]

So this is awkward, but the Hostess CEO was hired AFTER the company filed for bankruptcy. He took the job for 500k, and gave himself the raise afterwards. So I guess this means he was incapable when he took the job, and then decided he was capable after getting the job, thus deserved a raise to reflect his newly discovered capabilities...

 

[VinBucFan]

So this is awkward, but the Hostess CEO was hired AFTER the company filed for bankruptcy. He took the job for 500k, and gave himself the raise afterwards. So I guess this means he was incapable when he took the job, and then decided he was capable after getting the job, thus deserved a raise to reflect his newly discovered capabilities...

 

wrong.  look a little closer.  THAT ^^^^^^^ comment is PROOF POSITIVE of my claim that CBW is a charlatan who uses "knowledge by website"  Stand back here comes the spin . .

(right now CBW is on Google typing H...O... S...)

[VinBucFan]

mediation impasse.  A bankruptcy professor was asked about the future of the brands:

""There's a lot of Goodwill that comes with the brand name," said  John Pottow, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of Michigan. "A lot of companies could buy the name and recipe for Twinkies and make them." They wouldn't have to make them at the Twinkies factories either. They could make them in new facilities not burdened under old worker agreements that, for instance, required employing separate drivers for two different kinds of Hostess products rather than trucking them together.


Ahhh .. what the heck, everyone knows that bankruptcy professors in Michigan are right wing anti-union kooks!!!     Now go get me my twinkies and ho-hos,  but have John bring the twinkies in his truck and. . . .   

[CBWx2]

So this is awkward, but the Hostess CEO was hired AFTER the company filed for bankruptcy. He took the job for 500k, and gave himself the raise afterwards. So I guess this means he was incapable when he took the job, and then decided he was capable after getting the job, thus deserved a raise to reflect his newly discovered capabilities...

 

wrong.  look a little closer.  THAT ^^^^^^^ comment is PROOF POSITIVE of my claim that CBW is a charlatan who uses "knowledge by website"  Stand back here comes the spin . .

(right now CBW is on Google typing H...O... S...)

Hostess filed for bankruptcy in January. Your own article says that Rayburn was hired as CEO in March. What comes first, genius? January or March?

[VinBucFan]

So this is awkward, but the Hostess CEO was hired AFTER the company filed for bankruptcy. He took the job for 500k, and gave himself the raise afterwards. So I guess this means he was incapable when he took the job, and then decided he was capable after getting the job, thus deserved a raise to reflect his newly discovered capabilities...

 

wrong.  look a little closer.  THAT ^^^^^^^ comment is PROOF POSITIVE of my claim that CBW is a charlatan who uses "knowledge by website"  Stand back here comes the spin . .

(right now CBW is on Google typing H...O... S...)

Hostess filed for bankruptcy in January. Your own article says that Rayburn was hired as CEO in March. What comes first, genius? January or March?

as you often do, you have your facts wrong. you posted a bunch of union talking points in this thread, no doubt not fully understanding what was actually happening.  This post by you and the one above illustrates perfectly that you really dont know what you are talking about,  Funny thing is your error (which would be obvious to someone UNDERSTANDING what actually happened) should be clear just from the posts in this thread. The problem isnt the calendar, the problem is . . . well . ..   you.

[CBWx2]

So this is awkward, but the Hostess CEO was hired AFTER the company filed for bankruptcy. He took the job for 500k, and gave himself the raise afterwards. So I guess this means he was incapable when he took the job, and then decided he was capable after getting the job, thus deserved a raise to reflect his newly discovered capabilities...

 

wrong.  look a little closer.  THAT ^^^^^^^ comment is PROOF POSITIVE of my claim that CBW is a charlatan who uses "knowledge by website"  Stand back here comes the spin . .

(right now CBW is on Google typing H...O... S...)

Hostess filed for bankruptcy in January. Your own article says that Rayburn was hired as CEO in March. What comes first, genius? January or March?

as you often do, you have your facts wrong. you posted a bunch of union talking points in this thread, no doubt not fully understanding what was actually happening.  This post by you and the one above illustrates perfectly that you really dont know what you are talking about,  Funny thing is your error (which would be obvious to someone UNDERSTANDING what actually happened) should be clear just from the posts in this thread. The problem isnt the calendar, the problem is . . . well . ..   you.

spin spin spin black hole.

[VinBucFan]

So this is awkward, but the Hostess CEO was hired AFTER the company filed for bankruptcy. He took the job for 500k, and gave himself the raise afterwards. So I guess this means he was incapable when he took the job, and then decided he was capable after getting the job, thus deserved a raise to reflect his newly discovered capabilities...

 

wrong.  look a little closer.  THAT ^^^^^^^ comment is PROOF POSITIVE of my claim that CBW is a charlatan who uses "knowledge by website"  Stand back here comes the spin . .

(right now CBW is on Google typing H...O... S...)

Hostess filed for bankruptcy in January. Your own article says that Rayburn was hired as CEO in March. What comes first, genius? January or March?

as you often do, you have your facts wrong. you posted a bunch of union talking points in this thread, no doubt not fully understanding what was actually happening.  This post by you and the one above illustrates perfectly that you really dont know what you are talking about,  Funny thing is your error (which would be obvious to someone UNDERSTANDING what actually happened) should be clear just from the posts in this thread. The problem isnt the calendar, the problem is . . . well . ..   you.

spin spin spin black hole.

well, if I was a dumbazz like you I guess I would say something dumb like "surrender noted," but since I am not I will just let this thread stand on its own, like many before, as testament to your shell game.  Prance around the boards as a condescending pretend know it all, but the truth is you usually dont actually know what you are talking about.  This current conversation is a perfect example.  Here's your latest comment:

So this is awkward, but the Hostess CEO was hired AFTER the company filed for bankruptcy. He took the job for 500k, and gave himself the raise afterwards. So I guess this means he was incapable when he took the job, and then decided he was capable after getting the job, thus deserved a raise to reflect his newly discovered capabilities...

The problem with that is that the CURRENT CEO is not the CEO that gave him self the "300%" raise you were squawking about earlier. Your prior squawking is proof that you just cut and past the talking points of some pro-union blog rather than actually thinking about it.

Also, the prior CEO did not give himself a 300% "raise."  He and other executives took salary where they would normally earn incentive money.  There's a very specific reason for that, but I will let you keep guessing at that.Nothing nefarious about it.  More than that, after the "raises" (essentially the same money just paid a different way) got so much negative press, the executives actually did CUT THEIR PAY  (lol).  That's right CBW, didnt find that fact on any of your liberal blogs, right? Funny thing is the curent CEO -- the one you said took a job for $500K and gave himself a raise afterwords (lol) -- actually cut his pay along with other executives as well. That is what actually happen from January to March -- lol -- not that BS you posted as if it was the truth.  ROFLMAO . . .  man CBW . . .Trayvon Martin all over again . . .

Anyone with a desire to know the truth and access to Google could easily find these facts, so what does that tell us about you CBW? How you continue to post here is beyond me. the fact that you actually post as if you are smarter than everyone else is . . well ... hillarious

So here's a little tip for you.  Bankruptcy proceedings are PUBLIC RECORD and companies with many creditors, like Hostess, have a lot of people filing documents against them  in the public domain.  That means the ACTUAL FACTS (as opposed to some stupid pro-union spin) is there for the world to see (including all those bloggers and little CBW's of the world).  If you're not interested in the TRUTH, then just admit it. If you are just too lazy to actually find THE TRUTH yourself, there are numerous websites (snopes etc.) that make it their job to publish the truth behind spin.

 

[CBWx2]

Ah, my bad. Rayburn took over as CEO after Driskoll abruptly quit, after giving himself the 300% raise. You're right. That makes things look soooo much better for Hostess.   

[VinBucFan]

Ah, my bad. Rayburn took over as CEO after Driskoll abruptly quit, after giving himself the 300% raise. You're right. That makes things look soooo much better for Hostess.   

wrong . . . again. 

and a nice try at deflection

[CBWx2]

Ah, my bad. Rayburn took over as CEO after Driskoll abruptly quit, after giving himself the 300% raise. You're right. That makes things look soooo much better for Hostess.   

wrong . . . again. 

and a nice try at deflection

You're right. He didn't give himself the raise. Rayburn gave it to him prior to him quitting and leaving Rayburn to take on the job. That makes things look soooo much better for Hostess.   

[VinBucFan]

Ah, my bad. Rayburn took over as CEO after Driskoll abruptly quit, after giving himself the 300% raise. You're right. That makes things look soooo much better for Hostess.   

wrong . . . again. 

and a nice try at deflection

You're right. He didn't give himself the raise. Rayburn gave it to him prior to him quitting and leaving Rayburn to take on the job. That makes things look soooo much better for Hostess.   

you sure are trying hard . . . wonder why?   

[CBWx2]

No need. You're spin doesn't change the outcome one bit. The union and the management company had an agreement of shared sacrifice. Only one side was asked to keep that agreement, and they weren't happy about it. It also doesn't change the fact that the incompetence of the management team, the same one who got raises, were the reason the company had failed in the first place. Go ahead and spew your nonsense about retention bonuses all you want. What matters is that these bonuses not only didn't stabilize the management team, it also impeded negotiations with the unions.

[VinBucFan]

No need. You're spin doesn't change the outcome one bit. The union and the management company had an agreement of shared sacrifice. Only one side was asked to keep that agreement, and they weren't happy about it. It also doesn't change the fact that the incompetence of the management team, the same one who got raises, were the reason the company had failed in the first place. Go ahead and spew your nonsense about retention bonuses all you want. What matters is that these bonuses not only didn't stabilize the management team, it also impeded negotiations with the unions.

lol . . .  .angry

(I predict 4 pages of angry spin)