5 ms·

Every founder I have met after selling their company.

ahartmetz 2y ago
Understandable (as in: I could see myself acting like that if I had a company to sell), but also, you sold it, what did you expect? Did you believe some legally not enforceable promises because you wanted the money and were willing to lie to yourself?
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  From my own experience - I didn't expect anything. But it makes you sad if what you have built and spent so much time on it is going down.
- fifilura 2y ago
  There are many ways to loose control of your company without selling it upfront. For example if you take money from an minority investor with the promise of an IPO (so they can make profit from their minority share). After the company goes public, control is much more iffy. You may for example not have your place in the board anymore even though you are majority owner.
  - nradov 2y ago
    You're not making any sense. Unless the majority owner has a different share class with reduced voting rights then they can absolutely control the Board.
    - fifilura 2y ago
      Yeah brainfart. What i meant to say that in a public company you are expected to choose. Either you have control of the board or you are the CEO having control of the operations. Not both.
      - nradov 2y ago
        There is no such expectation. Some corporate governance experts prefer that the Chairman and CEO roles be split in order to prevent conflicts of interest and protect the rights of minority shareholders but there are many companies where a single person does both.
      - bitwize 2y ago
        Bill Gates was chairman and CEO of Microsoft for the longest. Have things changed since then?
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    This makes no sense whatsoever. If you're the majority holder then by definition you hold more than 50% of the stock and can force whatever resolution you see fit. Perhaps you meant largest holder, but without a majority?
    - SargeDebian 2y ago
      Or multiple stock classes, where done have more voting rights than others.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Yes. Some of it is just plain dillusion. My grandmother went through so much trouble and time finding someone she wanted to sell her business to because of "her clients" etc. She sold it and complained about everything the lady did to the business. She even financed the sale so she could sell to her, denying cash offers that came in much higher. The person she sold it to sold off half the business and clients almost immediately.
jasonjayr 2y ago
However he sold it; they apparently, to this day have rights to his likeness. I would hope that would give him some power to call them out if they are making a lesser product in his name, all the while passing it off as his 'original recipe'
- fallingknife 2y ago
  I love how in the article they just let him go back and walk around the kitchen and bitch even though he had nothing to do with the company at that point. Who's going to say no when you walk into a KFC and you're Colonel fucking Sanders

Understandable (as in: I could see myself acting like that if I had a company to sell), but also, you sold it, what did you expect? Did you believe some legally not enforceable promises because you wanted the money and were willing to lie to yourself?

KingOfCoders 2y ago
From my own experience - I didn't expect anything. But it makes you sad if what you have built and spent so much time on it is going down.
fifilura 2y ago
There are many ways to loose control of your company without selling it upfront. For example if you take money from an minority investor with the promise of an IPO (so they can make profit from their minority share). After the company goes public, control is much more iffy. You may for example not have your place in the board anymore even though you are majority owner.
- nradov 2y ago
  You're not making any sense. Unless the majority owner has a different share class with reduced voting rights then they can absolutely control the Board.
  - fifilura 2y ago
    Yeah brainfart. What i meant to say that in a public company you are expected to choose. Either you have control of the board or you are the CEO having control of the operations. Not both.
    - nradov 2y ago
      There is no such expectation. Some corporate governance experts prefer that the Chairman and CEO roles be split in order to prevent conflicts of interest and protect the rights of minority shareholders but there are many companies where a single person does both.
    - bitwize 2y ago
      Bill Gates was chairman and CEO of Microsoft for the longest. Have things changed since then?
- Etheryte 2y ago
  This makes no sense whatsoever. If you're the majority holder then by definition you hold more than 50% of the stock and can force whatever resolution you see fit. Perhaps you meant largest holder, but without a majority?
  - SargeDebian 2y ago
    Or multiple stock classes, where done have more voting rights than others.
datavirtue 2y ago
Yes. Some of it is just plain dillusion. My grandmother went through so much trouble and time finding someone she wanted to sell her business to because of "her clients" etc. She sold it and complained about everything the lady did to the business. She even financed the sale so she could sell to her, denying cash offers that came in much higher. The person she sold it to sold off half the business and clients almost immediately.

jasonjayr 2y ago

However he sold it; they apparently, to this day have rights to his likeness. I would hope that would give him some power to call them out if they are making a lesser product in his name, all the while passing it off as his 'original recipe'

fallingknife 2y ago
I love how in the article they just let him go back and walk around the kitchen and bitch even though he had nothing to do with the company at that point. Who's going to say no when you walk into a KFC and you're Colonel fucking Sanders