As a shareholder since 2003, I'll only add this commentary. Not knowing Gregg Aramanda, I can't comment on him with any personal knowledge. The only thing I WILL say in response to your comments is that when he joined the company, it was NOT as a business development person. I believe (and you could probably check this out with your inside sources) he was a program manager.
The COO was in business development when they won their second long-term contract, the C-5 TOP, which generated $40+ million in revenue. He was also part of the development team that actually won the A-10, E-2D, BLACKHAWK, S-92 and G650 contracts. Don't forget, for those to be awarded in '08, they had to have been working on them starting back in '06 or '07. So I'm not sure that Mr. Aramanda should be getting the credit for any of those, the ones that transformed this company.
That said, there is no argument that he was in BD when they won Honda, Embrear, and Bell. I also understand that they hired a second BD person, a British guy, who is rather dynamic. So who can say whether HE was responsible for their most recent successes, or if it was Mr. Aramanda? It would "appear" that perhaps, if they tried to offer Mr. Aramanda something else, maybe he wasn't all they hoped he'd be. But that is 100% conjecture. I could be way off base.
My only point is, none of us, not even greeneyes, knows the gory details of the internal workings and decision-making processes of the company. They may "think" they do, but let's face it, any of us who worked in companies know that we only ever know 50% - 75% of the real story. Yet on this board, it seems we all think we know everything. And that's how these conversations get out of hand.
Plus, there's way too much "shadowy" stuff. Greeneyes has been asked a half dozen times how he knows what he thinks he knows, and yet he has always refused to give us that information. He certainly sounds like an employee who was let go! Hernandez is obviously a very disgruntled current employee who loves criticizing from the shadows. People from this board invited her/him to go tell the CEO how she/he feels, and we all know she/he doesn't have the guts to do that! Yet she/he comes out of the woodwork to issue commentary about her/his impression of the CEO's genitals?
Tell me this board hasn't gotten crazy and out of hand? I really miss the days when there were intelligent discussions about the BUSINESS of CPI, and not all of the character assassination that goes on now. And folks, all three C-level guys have contracts that are in place until the end of '14. They're not going anywhere! And while you may hate his guts at the moment, Mr. Fred took this company from about $10 million to $89 million. The stock was $3.80 three of four years ago, and hit $16.00+ last year! There are A LOT of people very happy with him! Do you realize how much money you could have made if you stuck with them and bought whenever there was a drop, for any reason? So if you think a few people screaming for their heads on a chat board is going to get the board to relieve them of their positions, you'd better think again!
Your post does not ring true. I am certain that you are not a retired CPA who has some shares of the stock since 2003 and gets his information from the management via phone calls as you have claimed. For you to claim that Mr Aramanda was a program manager when he first came on board over 6 years ago is not the kind of information you would discover when you called Mr Fred for an update on the company; it implies you are an employee of the company. Other comments you have made make it clear you are not who you say you are. In addition, you have a strange way of assigning credit for the company's success.
You claim the current COO was in business development in the time before the big contracts you listed and was part of the winning team that won the business. Two things about that, one of which is your timeline is off. According to the CPI website, the COO was made VP of Operations January of 2007, the bid for the G650 didn't go out until the summer of 2007 so he was already out of the direct loop by then. The bids for the E-2 did not go out until about that same time, so he wasn't in business development at that time either. We know this because Mr Aramanda came to our company at that time asking us to bid on the two RFQs, and in the case of the Spirit wing for the G650 we got bid requests from other local companies at that same time for the same parts that CPI wanted us to do.
You also claim the COO should get credit for the awards you listed because he was part of the team, even though he was not the leader of the department at any time. When he was in business development he worked for Mr Funicello, so he was on the team for some of the wins but not in the primary role and yet you give him mention for these wins. Yet Mr Aramanda was clearly the head of the department for all the other bids but you seem to think he may not have had anything to do with the Honda and other wins; you seem to give credit very selectively. I guess it just a coincidence that you give credit to the man still at the company and none to those who are no longer there. In addition, the British man you are talking about is a good BD person, but the Bell award was made before he came to CPI; we bid that one as well.
The other thing that doesn't make sense is your interpretation of why Mr Aramanda left. You claim that perhaps he wasn't all that the company hoped he would be. If that was true, why would they keep him as VP for four years, doesn't that mean the great management team that you claim they have at CPI doesn't know what they are doing? Why keep a marginal person as a VP for 4 years, then offer that same person another VP position for getting new business if the person wasn't a truly productive employee? It is very interesting that this is where you go for your 100% conjecture; why didn't you conjecture that Mr Aramanda was successful and just chose to move on instead? I think the reason is obvious.
I don't know Mr Aramanda, although some in our company do, and I don't have an opinion on him one way or the other except everyone I have talked to at our company and other places in the area that know him have nothing but good things to say about him; I know because I have asked since you insisted on posting this item twice in the last few days to emphasize your point. You are the only person I have heard say anything negative about his work capability. You are right that this board seem to be engaging in character assassination; you seem to be just as guilty as those you condemn, just against a different target. I really don't care about this whole thing that much except I don't like it when someone represents themselves as someone they are not; you clearly are guilty of this and it stinks. We like doing work for CPI, it is an excellent company, and wish them a lot of success in the future, it will be good for both our companies. I just feel lucky that we haven't had to deal with you at CPI yet, I hope it stays that way.
I love it! Undressed Vince Palazolla like a new born baby. Exposed him as fast as a $20 stripper.
What a way for a CFO to be conducting himself all day. No wonder the company is in dire straits.
Vince try doing a little work instead of posting as the real deal. All you do is confirm how poorly run the company is and how pathetic management is.
I love it, you sought out Mandereska only to wish you never did.