5 ms·

One more thing, which may be controversial here on HN, but which I think is nonetheless correct, is that Musk has been effectively cornered by the previous Twit

One more thing, which may be controversial here on HN, but which I think is nonetheless correct, is that Musk has been effectively cornered by the previous Twitter board. He has no other choice but to count every penny and squeeze the maximum from the remaining employees. See the revenue vs loan payments estimates. So the blame for all the drastic measures such as mass layoffs and such, should be equally shared by the ex-board if not solely.

detaro 4y ago
What exactly did the board do to "corner" him?
- karp773 4y ago
  Didn't they sue him into shelling out $44 billion?
  - detaro 4y ago
    He voluntarily offered to pay $44 billion and voluntarily signed a contract saying he'd do so. Insisting that he follow through with what he voluntarily made a binding commitment to do is hardly "cornering". The debt that has been taken on was his idea, part of the original offer he made, it's not like he didn't plan for Twitter having that debt to pay off.
  - d_e_solomon 4y ago
    I mean, he did commit to buying them $44 billion. If he didn't want to buy them, he shouldn't have signed a contract agreeing to do so. You can't argue that Musk doesn't know what a contract is and can't get decent legal advice.
    - karp773 4y ago
      He signed the contract in a totally different market environment. Twitter's board knew this but still proceeded to sue him nonetheless. Did they understand the consequences for the company and the employees? Sure they did but went on anyway.
      - detaro 4y ago
        > He signed the contract in a totally different market environment. As if 13 billion extra debt would've not mattered when he signed the contract?
      - adoxyz 4y ago
        He made an unsolicited offer, the board didn't even want him to buy it and explored a bunch of options to prevent a hostile takeover, so he kept pushing, then they said fine, and then the market turned, and then he started walking it back trying to find any reason to back out, but eventually couldn't. This was 100% a self-inflicted wound.
fullshark 4y ago
He signed a contract and tried to back out of it. He dug that hole for himself.
- karp773 4y ago
  He surely did. But then who pushed him (along with the company) into that hole? :)
  - fullshark 4y ago
    And I'm sure if on earth 2 the board had rejected his offer, citing any of these reasons you'd be in full agreement with them.... I mostly remember Musk fans cheering this madness on as it was happening. The timing was ridiculously terrible given the market downturn but I'm pretty sure anyone sympathetic to your current argument would have been cursing the board if they had rejected his bid.
    - karp773 4y ago
      You are probably right. Still, it's not just negotiating and signing a burdensome deal for Musk, but going as far as SUING him into honoring it, that makes their intent obvious (purely monetary reward, no regard for the employees nor the product, nor societal impact). They knew exactly what it meant for Twitter but went for it anyway just to get a payout. Again, this was their fiduciary duty to do so but then not holding them accountable for selling out is ridiculous. EDIT: I mean morally accountable.

detaro 4y ago

What exactly did the board do to "corner" him?

karp773 4y ago
Didn't they sue him into shelling out $44 billion?
- detaro 4y ago
  He voluntarily offered to pay $44 billion and voluntarily signed a contract saying he'd do so. Insisting that he follow through with what he voluntarily made a binding commitment to do is hardly "cornering". The debt that has been taken on was his idea, part of the original offer he made, it's not like he didn't plan for Twitter having that debt to pay off.
- d_e_solomon 4y ago
  I mean, he did commit to buying them $44 billion. If he didn't want to buy them, he shouldn't have signed a contract agreeing to do so. You can't argue that Musk doesn't know what a contract is and can't get decent legal advice.
  - karp773 4y ago
    He signed the contract in a totally different market environment. Twitter's board knew this but still proceeded to sue him nonetheless. Did they understand the consequences for the company and the employees? Sure they did but went on anyway.
    - detaro 4y ago
      > He signed the contract in a totally different market environment. As if 13 billion extra debt would've not mattered when he signed the contract?
    - adoxyz 4y ago
      He made an unsolicited offer, the board didn't even want him to buy it and explored a bunch of options to prevent a hostile takeover, so he kept pushing, then they said fine, and then the market turned, and then he started walking it back trying to find any reason to back out, but eventually couldn't. This was 100% a self-inflicted wound.

fullshark 4y ago

He signed a contract and tried to back out of it. He dug that hole for himself.

karp773 4y ago
He surely did. But then who pushed him (along with the company) into that hole? :)
- fullshark 4y ago
  And I'm sure if on earth 2 the board had rejected his offer, citing any of these reasons you'd be in full agreement with them.... I mostly remember Musk fans cheering this madness on as it was happening. The timing was ridiculously terrible given the market downturn but I'm pretty sure anyone sympathetic to your current argument would have been cursing the board if they had rejected his bid.
  - karp773 4y ago
    You are probably right. Still, it's not just negotiating and signing a burdensome deal for Musk, but going as far as SUING him into honoring it, that makes their intent obvious (purely monetary reward, no regard for the employees nor the product, nor societal impact). They knew exactly what it meant for Twitter but went for it anyway just to get a payout. Again, this was their fiduciary duty to do so but then not holding them accountable for selling out is ridiculous. EDIT: I mean morally accountable.