RE: Charles Morgan: plot thickens
Tuesday 22nd October 2013
There are always two sides to every story and last week's reports of Charles Morgan's shock departure from the firm set up by his own grandfather mainly gave his. Lingering suspicion there might be more to it than that appear to have been confirmed, Autocar reporting on having seen a document detailing four counts of misconduct that led the board to dismissing him.
Charles Morgan: plot thickens
Autocar reveals why Morgan board - and family - deposed Charles Morgan
The already very public spat between Morgan C and the board of Morgan Motor Company - which includes his sister, brother in law, two nephews and a niece - continues apace then, the public airing of dirty washing at least shedding light on the motivation for deposing him.
Support for Charles Morgan on Twitter continues, the man himself perhaps quieter on social media than he has been traditionally (no update to his blog, for instance) but his wife and friends keeping up the pressure for him to be reinstated. Something that appears increasingly unlikely in light of these revelations.
[Source: Autocar]
Discussion
I guess Morgan is privately owned? Is Charles "guilty" of running the company as if he owned it then? After all, to the world at large, Charles Morgan, not any number of persons with the name "Price", IS Morgan.
When I read the word "misconduct", I feared something really serious. Having read the article I see nothing of the sort and one might see these matters of "misconduct" as mere "convenience" in order to justify a decision which has its origins in "family matters".
After all, any privately owned company with such a public figure at its head would have sought to air its dirty washing behind closed doors. That fact that this is public suggests that there was a very serious breakdown within the walls at Pickersleigh Road.
When I read the word "misconduct", I feared something really serious. Having read the article I see nothing of the sort and one might see these matters of "misconduct" as mere "convenience" in order to justify a decision which has its origins in "family matters".
After all, any privately owned company with such a public figure at its head would have sought to air its dirty washing behind closed doors. That fact that this is public suggests that there was a very serious breakdown within the walls at Pickersleigh Road.
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.
Rubystone - does it matter what the world at large think?
If Charles Morgan is doing things which should have board approval, without it, being the owner of only 1/3rd of the shares (is it?), that is pretty serious - it isn't a case of 'the world thinks I run Morgan, therefore I can do as I please'.
If Charles Morgan is doing things which should have board approval, without it, being the owner of only 1/3rd of the shares (is it?), that is pretty serious - it isn't a case of 'the world thinks I run Morgan, therefore I can do as I please'.
Vocal Minority said:
If Charles Morgan is doing things which should have board approval, without it, being the owner of only 1/3rd of the shares (is it?), that is pretty serious - it isn't a case of 'the world thinks I run Morgan, therefore I can do as I please'.
I suspect it was a case of "I'm the public face of Morgan - you daren't challenge me". Which worked for a while, but obviously the rest of the Board reached breaking point.The fact is that Morgan is not owned by one person; there is a board of directors and any major decisions should be discussed at board level. Of the four allegations, the most serious would be the sponsorship of Oak Racing as this involves spending company funds. Motorsport sponsorship at this level does not come cheap. Who actually released the funds as surely this could have been stopped; surely more that one signatory would have been required? Posing as chairman - before this blew up I bet 99% of people if asked would have named him as chairman. Revealing that an improved 3 wheeler was being developed (how many manufacturers don't introduce a Mk.II version?) - he spoke to existing owners who I'm sure would happily trade up to a newer model, thus increasing sales/profits. If there was an opportunity to be paid for going to Afghanistan and Iran, I would have thought that that should be his business. (In what capacity did he travel?). I think there is still more to come out.
The biggest concern with regards to mis conduct by Charles Morgan and the company board members was producing beautiful hand built cars and then bestowing cross eyed headlamps on them. What were they thinking!!!! Crossed eyed 'aeros' are just plain embarrassing! why can't they put some energy into straightening them out instead of bickering. Far better for the future of the company!
Edited by Nick644 on Tuesday 22 October 12:57
Edited by Nick644 on Tuesday 22 October 12:58
rubystone said:
When I read the word "misconduct", I feared something really serious. Having read the article I see nothing of the sort and one might see these matters of "misconduct" as mere "convenience" in order to justify a decision which has its origins in "family matters".
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 met some journalists in summer who had just had a tour by Charles Morgan and thought he was the MD in spite of his rather public demotion so maybe that's indicative of the issue.
Hopefully this is just an overzealous way of putting him in his place and he'll be reinstated eventually, because as an ambassador for the brand a charming and dapper English gent who waxes lyrical about the cars is pretty much as perfect as you can get for Morgan.
Hopefully this is just an overzealous way of putting him in his place and he'll be reinstated eventually, because as an ambassador for the brand a charming and dapper English gent who waxes lyrical about the cars is pretty much as perfect as you can get for Morgan.
rubystone said:
After all, to the world at large, Charles Morgan, not any number of persons with the name "Price", IS Morgan.
^This.The whole thing is unedifying and unseemly. It is a PR clusterf
k - no idea how the board thought it would ever end up otherwise.Sad to see another great English marque having a "monkey f
king a football" moment.Digga said:
The whole thing is unedifying and unseemly. It is a PR clusterfk - no idea how the board thought it would ever end up otherwise.
Sad to see another great English marque having a "monkey fking a football" moment.
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.k - no idea how the board thought it would ever end up otherwise.Sad to see another great English marque having a "monkey f
king a football" moment.This is not 'another great English marque having a monkey f
king a football moment' this is a another great English marque trying to move forward and having to overcome 'old world' mentalities.j90gta said:
The fact is that Morgan is not owned by one person; there is a board of directors and any major decisions should be discussed at board level. Of the four allegations, the most serious would be the sponsorship of Oak Racing as this involves spending company funds. Motorsport sponsorship at this level does not come cheap. Who actually released the funds as surely this could have been stopped; surely more that one signatory would have been required? Posing as chairman - before this blew up I bet 99% of people if asked would have named him as chairman. Revealing that an improved 3 wheeler was being developed (how many manufacturers don't introduce a Mk.II version?) - he spoke to existing owners who I'm sure would happily trade up to a newer model, thus increasing sales/profits. If there was an opportunity to be paid for going to Afghanistan and Iran, I would have thought that that should be his business. (In what capacity did he travel?). I think there is still more to come out.
Well... there is certainly one person who owns most of the company. ;-) You can probably guess who it is of you dig around a little.NomduJour said:
Frimley111R said:
The board had reasons to remove him and they do not have to tell anyone what those are. They may do in time
They already have done. Nobody is likely to come out of this well.Frimley111R said:
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.
The reasons quoted do not seem to me to be enough for a dismissal - however I'm sure that will be decided in court.A board of top execs? - Or a family with their own agenda.
If they were making that decision, and it was a considered decision - then they should have been better prepared for the ensuing PR disaster.
The fact that they're not better prepared leads me to believe that they have acted hastily and are now playing catch-up (badly).
geepee said:
The reasons quoted do not seem to me to be enough for a dismissal - however I'm sure that will be decided in court.
A board of top execs? - Or a family with their own agenda.
If they were making that decision, and it was a considered decision - then they should have been better prepared for the ensuing PR disaster.
The fact that they're not better prepared leads me to believe that they have acted hastily and are now playing catch-up (badly).
Couldn't have put it better myself. Intrigued as to who owns the company though....A board of top execs? - Or a family with their own agenda.
If they were making that decision, and it was a considered decision - then they should have been better prepared for the ensuing PR disaster.
The fact that they're not better prepared leads me to believe that they have acted hastily and are now playing catch-up (badly).
rubystone said:
Intrigued as to who owns the company though....
From the other threads on the same subject.CraigyMc said:
Morgan Motor Company Ltd is a subsidiary of Morgan Technologies Ltd, which is the parent of the rest of the group.
The shareholdings of this company are as follows:
Have a peruse at http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07459137/MORGAN-...
The shareholdings of this company are as follows:
Shareholders (Top 20 names shown) Number of Shares (at Value) Ownership (%)
CHARLES PETER HENRY MORGAN 29,133 (at £1) 30.67
PHG MORGAN FAMILY TRUST 45,600 (at £1) 48.00
JILL PRICE 10,134 (at £1) 10.67
JACQUELINE PERTWEE 5,067 (at £1) 5.33
CRAIG HAMILTON-SMITH 5,066 (at £1) 5.33
Have a peruse at http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07459137/MORGAN-...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff