I have always difficulties understanding these kind of statements: "appointment of civil servants or politicians to the supervisory board was unacceptable in t

I have always difficulties understanding these kind of statements: "appointment of civil servants or politicians to the supervisory board was unacceptable in the eyes of Lufthansa's executives." Like, how is that any of executives' business who is on the supervisory board? If they do not like the money, find other investors, easy as that? It is almost like "ownership" is not a concept that should be associated with corporate shareholders at all, because it seems that the relationship between shareholders and corporation has very little resemblance of actual ownership. Same thing applies to "hostile takeovers". What on earth is that? How come executives of the company I have shares at think they are anyhow entitled to have an opinion about me selling my shares to whom I want? None of their business whatsoever. If they want to have opinion, offer me better price.