RE: Charles Morgan: plot thickens

[Chrisgr31]

Frimley111R said:

I disagree. The board had reasons to remove him and they do not have to tell anyone what those are. They may do in time. As with Danny Bahar, with potential legal responses arising from the sacking they cannot simply divulge everything immediately, even if they wanted to. Like DB, if CM has been ousted it was done so with good reason. A whole board of top execs wouldn't make such a decision lightly. I can't remember the exact series of events but iirc the company issued a short notice of this decision, probably knowing that if they didn't do something ASAP CM would tweet it.

This is not 'another great English marque having a monkey fking a football moment' this is a another great English marque trying to move forward and having to overcome 'old world' mentalities.

If the board was full of top execs I might have some faith with your views however according tho the article the Board comprises:-

"According to the document, the decision was made by the membership of the board of Morgan Technologies: Steven Morris (Morgan's managing Director), Timothy Whitworth (Morgan's finance director), Gillian Price (Charles's sister), David Price (Charles's brother-in-law), Laurence Price (Charles's nephew), Craig Hamilton Smith (Charles's nephew), Jackie Pertwee (Charles's niece) and Andrew Duncan (the Morgan family solicitor)."

Plus Charles himself, however he appears to have been off sick. It would be interesting to know the relationship of each of the family board members to each other or in particular whose children are the nieces and nephews.

Irresepctive of the rights and the wrongs of the decision it is a PR disaster for the brand, particularly as I suspect the typical Moran driver would be likely to have an affinity with Charles Morgan.

[Digga]

Frimley111R said:

This is not 'another great English marque having a monkey fking a football moment' this is a another great English marque trying to move forward and having to overcome 'old world' mentalities.

This is washing the dirty (Morgan family) laundry in public.

Do not personally subscribe to the idea that "no publicity is bad publicity". No good can or will come of this.

To be clear, that is not to say there is any party in this without blame. Given the composition of the board, it is very unlikely anything other than a partisan view will ever emerge from this.

[unrepentant]

Krikkit said:

Doesn't really clear any of it up imo - all those incidents aren't exactly earth-shattering revelations about super-secret company business. The expense of the LMP could be the biggest issue, but we'll never know how the financials worked out on that; I would suggest there's still a lot more to this behind closed doors.

Posing as the chairman is also a pretty serious business if the impression given is that the individual concerned had the authority to speak for the board. It would be grounds for dismissal in many businesses especially in a situation where the individual concerned had already been demoted from a senior executive position.

I was involved with another quite well known family business some years ago where the two principle siblings had fallen out to the point where they barely spoke to each other. The situation had reached a point where they had been forced to bring in an outside non executive chairman to keep the peace and run their board meetings. We were bought in to take over the distribution of their products for them and we attended the board meetings which were pretty toxic.

Family businesses work where there is a clear leader who has the authority AND the acumen to run the company. In a situation like this where power is fragmented and the person at the top does not have the confidence of the board that person has to go. That seems to have been what happened here some months ago but the actions taken then didn't effectively deal with the problem. Reports suggest that there is unanimity amongst the board and one has to asume that they have the best interests of the business at heart.

[chickensoup]

These may not be earth shattering revelations, but they will be the ones that are watertight, would stand up to the scrutiny of a tribunal, and are sufficient (in the eyes of a lawyer) to dismiss.

Whatever else he did to ps off the rest of the family might never be known, but this shows the tip of the iceberg

[Emeye]

The Vambo said:

Nice to see PH (forum) taking the same premature know-it-all line with Charles Morgan that it did Mark Hales.

And we know how that turned out...

Edited by The Vambo on Tuesday 22 October 13:29

How did it turn out? I lost interest a while back, but now my interest has been piqued.

[Chrisgr31]

Emeye said:

The Vambo said:

Nice to see PH (forum) taking the same premature know-it-all line with Charles Morgan that it did Mark Hales.

And we know how that turned out...

Edited by The Vambo on Tuesday 22 October 13:29

How did it turn out? I lost interest a while back, but now my interest has been piqued.

As far as I recall Mark Hales lost the case and therefore had to pay up. The outcome of the case was presumably legally correct, although there was then discussion as to whether it was morally correct.

[longblackcoat]

Chrisgr31 said:

Emeye said:

The Vambo said:

Nice to see PH (forum) taking the same premature know-it-all line with Charles Morgan that it did Mark Hales.

And we know how that turned out...

Edited by The Vambo on Tuesday 22 October 13:29

How did it turn out? I lost interest a while back, but now my interest has been piqued.

As far as I recall Mark Hales lost the case and therefore had to pay up. The outcome of the case was presumably legally correct, although there was then discussion as to whether it was morally correct.

Further, as time went on there was the general acceptance that despite MH being "one of the good guys", "a nice chap" etc, he was a bit of an idiot for the way he'd handled this, and was in fact very much the author of his own misfortunes, as he could have settled much earlier for about one fifth of the final bill.

Except that he never paid, because he declared himself bankrupt.

The parallel, I suspect, is that although the PH Massive are currently outraged at the way that CM's been treated, when all the dust's settled, there will be the quiet acceptance that the Morgan Board didn't have much option, given that CM was treating Morgan as his personal plaything, spending amounts he really shouldn't have been and generally not being very competent at the job he was employed to do. I could be wrong, obviously, and in many ways I hope I am.

[The Vambo]

longblackcoat said:

Chrisgr31 said:

Emeye said:

The Vambo said:

Nice to see PH (forum) taking the same premature know-it-all line with Charles Morgan that it did Mark Hales.

And we know how that turned out...

Edited by The Vambo on Tuesday 22 October 13:29

How did it turn out? I lost interest a while back, but now my interest has been piqued.

As far as I recall Mark Hales lost the case and therefore had to pay up. The outcome of the case was presumably legally correct, although there was then discussion as to whether it was morally correct.

Further, as time went on there was the general acceptance that despite MH being "one of the good guys", "a nice chap" etc, he was a bit of an idiot for the way he'd handled this, and was in fact very much the author of his own misfortunes, as he could have settled much earlier for about one fifth of the final bill.

Except that he never paid, because he declared himself bankrupt.

The parallel, I suspect, is that although the PH Massive are currently outraged at the way that CM's been treated, when all the dust's settled, there will be the quiet acceptance that the Morgan Board didn't have much option, given that CM was treating Morgan as his personal plaything, spending amounts he really shouldn't have been and generally not being very competent at the job he was employed to do. I could be wrong, obviously, and in many ways I hope I am.

Pretty much.

Especially the continual assumption that CM couldn't be at fault because "I met him once and he is a thoroughly nice chap" nonsense.

[oldtimer2]

unrepentant said:

Krikkit said:

Doesn't really clear any of it up imo - all those incidents aren't exactly earth-shattering revelations about super-secret company business. The expense of the LMP could be the biggest issue, but we'll never know how the financials worked out on that; I would suggest there's still a lot more to this behind closed doors.

Posing as the chairman is also a pretty serious business if the impression given is that the individual concerned had the authority to speak for the board. It would be grounds for dismissal in many businesses especially in a situation where the individual concerned had already been demoted from a senior executive position.

I was involved with another quite well known family business some years ago where the two principle siblings had fallen out to the point where they barely spoke to each other. The situation had reached a point where they had been forced to bring in an outside non executive chairman to keep the peace and run their board meetings. We were bought in to take over the distribution of their products for them and we attended the board meetings which were pretty toxic.

Family businesses work where there is a clear leader who has the authority AND the acumen to run the company. In a situation like this where power is fragmented and the person at the top does not have the confidence of the board that person has to go. That seems to have been what happened here some months ago but the actions taken then didn't effectively deal with the problem. Reports suggest that there is unanimity amongst the board and one has to asume that they have the best interests of the business at heart.

In a public company committing spending without or beyond delegated authorities is often a firing offence - the alternative is anarchy. The alleged sports sponsorship appears to be in that category. Misrepresenting one`s position in his circumstances (following his "demotion") looks like another to me. I guess the outcome may depend on how much his change of status was verbal only as opposed to documented in a contract.

[Garvin]

Charles had better be going through the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association with a fine tooth comb. These are what govern how shareholders control the Board of Directors and what their authority is. If there are no specific restrictions defining what need to be referred to the Board for resolution then Charles may not have exceeded his authority although posing as the Chairman maybe somewhat difficult to justify!

[tomoleeds]

The Morgan shown in the picture looks nice, the awful 3 wheeler shown on the new fifth gear this week, really made me wonder why morgan would make something so dangerous

[Gorbyrev]

tomoleeds said:

The Morgan shown in the picture looks nice, the awful 3 wheeler shown on the new fifth gear this week, really made me wonder why morgan would make something so dangerous

Fun?

[DreadUK]

Of course it could be some exotic PR stunt........but then again, I don't think so.

However -

The motorsport spending would have been a major expense over at least a year or so, probably a lot longer including talks, meetings and discussions "where are you off to Charles, Oh just going for another unaccompanied drive for 6 hours".....Lobbox! Unlikely to be a trivial 'gift' and must have passed through the Morgan financial process at which point at least one half blind, deaf, decrepit accountant would have asked why £5K...£20K.....£50K was being given to another organisation for no aparrent reason. As for actually signing over the money, I somehow doubt CM would have had control of the petty cash far less a rogue cheque so if there is 'misdirection' of funds, someone elses head has to roll. I can see that charge being dropped PDQ.

Passing himself off as Chairman? need a reliable witness or ten to prove that one....."No No, I said 'Chair Mam?' your honour, dreadful misunderstanding, a few drinky poos to many you undershtand". So unless there is some written evidence, unusual in a disorganised shambles of a family enterprise Morgan is presenting itself as, CH will be laughing all the way to the courts for a case of defamation of character.

All the rest?....drivel concocted by a bunch of infighting ingrates running a tin pot company with dillusions of grandeur.

[Ozzie Osmond]

DreadUK said:

....running a tin pot company with delusions of grandeur.

That's probably why they hoofed him out. CM only owns a minority in the company and the others are probably fed up with watching him strut about as if it was his own company.

At the end of the day none of this matters so long as there are still customers who want to buy the cars.

[fish fingers]

DonkeyApple said:

They certainly do look like 'reasons' picked out and curve fitted to achieve an outcome that was not possible under the real reasons.

Family dynamic:

A sister who received a much smaller inheritence, ie smaller stake in the family business. A brother who was groomed by the father to take over.

A sister's husband who probably wants more of what he married into.

A brother who married an excotic foreigner seen by members of the family as a bad influence and a divider.

Other family members with smaller stakes wanting more.

The brother not being smart enough to see what was coming and to temper his ways.

All made up by me but just based on how almost all family rifts in England have occured down the ages. Afterall, there was common sense in the murdering of your siblings prior to inheritence in the old days

I think you hit the nail (or rivet) on the head...
No matter that he named his son Maximus or has a wife who gets her tits out for Morgan photoshoots, the family failed to realise that he's the perfect ambassador/schmoozer for Morgan cars. Who else can do that role as well as Charles, whether it's a Goodwood vip party or some other ttty drinkathon, exotic car buyers are now days mostly new rich. And he still relates to the trad Morgan buyer through association. Charles and exotic east europe/russian part time actress wife are perfect in this role.

[bencollins]

The Crack Fox said:

The loser, in this whole badly managed affair, is the company, it's employees and their customer base. A real shame, regardless of what has happened behind closed doors.

Disagree heartily, absolutely not a "PR" disaster, because as donkeyapple refers to, its par for the course for a family company and I reckon adds to the intrigue and quirkyness.
Theyll be in the news all over the world, you cant buy advertising like that, crusty old english family squabbling, the world loves Downton Abbey.
Tweed, ash frames, family squabbling, haunted churchyards.
It's what people are buying into.

[DreadUK]

bencollins said:

Disagree heartily, absolutely not a "PR" disaster, because as donkeyapple refers to, its par for the course for a family company and I reckon adds to the intrigue and quirkyness.
Theyll be in the news all over the world, you cant buy advertising like that, crusty old english family squabbling, the world loves Downton Abbey.
Tweed, ash frames, family squabbling, haunted churchyards.
It's what people are buying into.

Yea, but 'quirky' customers get bored and move on pretty quickly, as do bankers who watch the early stages of a company's ego fuelled implosion. And whether that destruction is perception or a reality, todays bankers will pull the rug from under their feet faster than a Morgan can accelerate......wait, thats probably the wrong expression. Faster than a Lambo can accelerate....thats better.

Seriously, there isn't enough people interested in daft kit quality cars who are steeped deeply enough in British tradition to keep a klunky old company profitable. At least not as profitable as it would seem these people want. Buyers will realise that it's as cheap having a bespoke car built by their mate George round the corner as it is to buy a production car from Morgan. You can buy a Harley engine for peanuts, bolt it onto the front of a three wheeled frame and clad it in canvas or plywood for £3K. Go for a genuine JAAP engine, which are still being produced.....just, and you have the genuine article. Call it a Worgan and your nearly there.

Of course it wouldn't work, Morgan occupies a massive niche vacuum, I wonder why? But when your a one trick pony, everythings a threat. God forbid a flue epidemic hits the factory!

[stuttgartmetal]

The millenium dome.
Organised by a board was a disaster.
They should've left Stephen Bayley to direct it.
Morgan seem the type of company with one man to make the decisions.
Looks like this'll go one of two ways.
And not the good way.

[unrepentant]

stuttgartmetal said:

The millenium dome.
Organised by a board was a disaster.
They should've left Stephen Bayley to direct it.
Morgan seem the type of company with one man to make the decisions.
Looks like this'll go one of two ways.
And not the good way.

That's fair enough as long as the "one man" is capable.

Presumably if Peter Morgan had felt that his son was the man to take the company forward he would have made him chairman of the trustees of the trust that effectively controls the company. From the reports that we have heard he was not even a trustee..........

[johnOjohn]

unrepentant said:

That's fair enough as long as the "one man" is capable.

Presumably if Peter Morgan had felt that his son was the man to take the company forward he would have made him chairman of the trustees...

I've noticed in comments here and elsewhere that the arguments in favour of Charles Morgan seem to be limited to having Morgan as a surname and that some employees and customers think he's a nice chap, but very few comments saying anything along the lines of him being good at the job, or the best person for it. There are however some quite harsh comments suggesting the opposite, including one I came across allegedly quoting Peter Morgan as saying "...the boy is an idiot".