Friday, June 02, 2006

The bitch wants to be CEO of Telecom


Not satisfied with her part in destroying the value of the property (a concept she doesn't understand very well) of Telecom shareholders, she now wants to be CEO. This will be rejected, as a Chief Executive is meant to act in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, not the shareholders of its competitors - if that is what you think she is. A competitor competes on price and service, not by getting the government to tilt the rules in your favour.
.
She has a letter to Rod Deane applying for it on her website. She wants only $40,000 for the job - what an angel - so you think shareholders would trust her, a shareholder in a competing firm to keep confidential information about their company? Like fucking hell! Getting paid so little would mean she owes Telecom little.
.
She's a stupid leftwing bitch - look at some of the things she says in her letter:
.
"The business must develop a social conscience. It must be socially aware of the impact of its actions on the people of New Zealand and New Zealand business. Without this you will always be at the mercy of government intervention and it will be impossible to meet a long term value goal"
.
Telecom provides services that YOU don't provide to customers. If it didn't exist, the economy would be far poorer - and Annette, that is businesses that produce things, not selling other people's property, like you. It doesn't need a social conscience, providing services to customers produces far more benefit for the country that having some Dick Hubbard like guilt trip about business. Telecom is good for New Zealand, if you disagree then how would it be if it rolled up all its property and sold it for scrap? Your business would be fucked then wouldn't it? The threat of government intervention is because of people like you - people who when you don't get what you want from a private company run to the government demanding it steal the property rights for the benefit of you and others. It's called force, a concept you like, it's actually wrong. "Long term value goal"? What the hell does that mean? So you say that unless Telecom surrenders shareholder value, the government will bully it by force and destroy it? You threatening shrew you!
.
"The level of regulatory intervention must be reduced. History has shown that in the long term, a high level of regulatory intervention is bad for business and does not provide long term benefits to end users"
.
Huh? So you expect to get this job by changing your spots? You spend years lobbying for regulatory intervention, but you know that it is bad in the long term??
.
Ahh there you have it, she wants to split Telecom into two businesses, separately listed on the stock exchange. That's it - what she wants the government to do by force, she wants to convince Telecom shareholders to agree to voluntarily. Give her points for wanting to convince Telecom it is a good idea, but her nonsense on social conscience does not bode well, plus her conflict of interest as an owner of a competitor.
.
However wait "On appointment as CEO, my first job will be to engage with the Government and obtain their (sic) buy in to this concept and undertaking to complete it by the end of 2006".
.
So she can't take her greasy little hands off using the state to endorse it. Annette should not get the job, it is clear she only wants to do it to benefit her own business - Slingshot. Why wouldn't she? She doesn't want to compete building her own network or negotiating with Telecom on a voluntary basis, but by bullying it. Now she wants to get in the tent to help restructure Telecom to suit her business and other competitors.
.
Given she contributed to the massive loss of value for Telecom shares, she deserves to be told by Rod Deane to kindly - get fucked. If you want to ask Annette why she thinks its ok for competitors of Telecom to demand the government force Telecom to make its property available for her to make money on, then do so.. ask her why this isn't theft or at least conversion? This is a list of her speaking engagements.
.
I'd like to her debate Peter Cresswell instead of suing him - but I suspect she likes the glamour of public attention, not the rigour of public debate.

No comments: