Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
When you get hired in an expensive gig, you get to set certain terms. Usually you can bring people across. Obviously, the new firm doesn't always scrutinise these people as closely as they would normal market hires as they are trusting your judgment and you have said they are the people you need beside you to get things done.
If Link brought in Patston from the Reds, he's responsible for her failures if she fails. She was HIS hire. That's the way it works - if you get the rope to set things up the way you want them, you'll hang by that rope when those things don't work.
That said, I don't think Link will go, as Pulver would prefer to reduce Link's apparent culpability so he (Pulver) doesn't look incompetent to the board and the public. The further down the chain the rogues are, the further the CEO can distance himself personally from the rogue behaviour. If Beale is the one that fucked up, that's hardly the CEO's fault. All he needs to do is not renew the contract and he'll appear to be dealing with the problem. If Patston fucked up, it can be put on Link but not really put Pulver. If Link fucked up, that's Pulver's problem.
There's plenty of scope for the ARU to keep much of this stuff under wraps from the public, so Pulver can spin things a bit for his benefit.
In summary, what will come from this is that Beale was almost solely at fault. His contract won't be renewed and Pulver's investigation will be presented as dealing with the issue. They are unlikely to say anything negative publicly about Patston as they either have an agreement to refrain from doing so or they would have been advised by their own lawyers to not do so.
There might be some fairly tame implied public criticism of Link but it won't be anything too significant and it sure as shit won't cost him his job .
If Link brought in Patston from the Reds, he's responsible for her failures if she fails. She was HIS hire. That's the way it works - if you get the rope to set things up the way you want them, you'll hang by that rope when those things don't work.
That said, I don't think Link will go, as Pulver would prefer to reduce Link's apparent culpability so he (Pulver) doesn't look incompetent to the board and the public. The further down the chain the rogues are, the further the CEO can distance himself personally from the rogue behaviour. If Beale is the one that fucked up, that's hardly the CEO's fault. All he needs to do is not renew the contract and he'll appear to be dealing with the problem. If Patston fucked up, it can be put on Link but not really put Pulver. If Link fucked up, that's Pulver's problem.
There's plenty of scope for the ARU to keep much of this stuff under wraps from the public, so Pulver can spin things a bit for his benefit.
In summary, what will come from this is that Beale was almost solely at fault. His contract won't be renewed and Pulver's investigation will be presented as dealing with the issue. They are unlikely to say anything negative publicly about Patston as they either have an agreement to refrain from doing so or they would have been advised by their own lawyers to not do so.
There might be some fairly tame implied public criticism of Link but it won't be anything too significant and it sure as shit won't cost him his job .
