Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums banner

Is their a difference in board companies that are top quality

10K views 71 replies 21 participants last post by  Deviant 
#1 ·
I have a 08/09 Rome Agent and just love it. It has been a great board and ill ride it tell it breaks. I do though want a 2nd board and i'm not sure if i'm going to buy a mountain board or park. My problem is since i've been looking around is their really a difference in top end boards? The technology is the same right? Everyone is using the 'latest' stuff so what is the difference?

If you take Burtons top park board along with Rome, NeverSummer, Libtech and others is there really a difference? Sure they are different companies made in different places but the technology today id say is the same? Is it just preference like the old Ford Vs Chevy debate?

I'm looking into NeverSumer and a 2nd Rome for my second board but im undecided and unsure about above what i just asked. Neversummer sounds like a great snowboard company but if i got the Raptor or Romes Anthem for mountain would i even notice what board i was using if i wasn't told?

I am a advanced/expert mountain rider and beginner park and have no problems going anywhere. I'm not new to the sport by any means but i've never really asked myself the above question. Help?
 
#50 ·
Quiksilver fucking sucks and any company that could go from 30 dollars a share to under a dollar in less than a year tells me 1. The CEO is a fucking moron 2. Grew too fast and didn't know how to sustain that growth 3. Doesn't understand the market.

Industry rumor is that Quik is trying to sell off Mervin because it's not performing the way they want. Doesn't surprise me because Mervin was millions in debt and borderline bankrupt when they got bought out by Quik.
 
#51 · (Edited)
So you get what I'm saying....if you listen to Lang, you would believe that Quicksilvers CEO could continue to tank the company and still have a job because he USED to own the company. Guess what, the minute you go public, and ask for public money, you give up ownership of the company because the PUBLIC owns the company. And if Quicksilver crashes, there will be a new CEO, which is an EXECUTIVE level position.

BA, I'm not arguing anyone should buy Mervin, or should buy anyone else. My point was that when someone brought up the Quicksilver CEO suggesting he is making decisions for his own profit, that couldn't be more false. He is making decisions backed by board and invester approval. CEOs making decisions for their own financial gain don't last long.

But to my point about a CEO being an executive level position in a PUBLIC company, it absolutely is. The CEO is the highest Exec level position, followed by the CFO, and Director level positions, all known as the Executive level. Lang fell asleep in law school.

Sorry for any IPhone typing errors. Despite CEO steve jobs retiring, Apple is still Apple, and they have a new CEO approved by public shareholders, so maybe he'll help implement some changes :)
 
#52 ·
Well there's some speculation on what McKnight is actually doing with the company and there's been some questionable practices on his end that have lined his pockets along with other share holders while not helping the best interest of the company which has resulted in some problems. Personally that guy should have been removed a while ago but that's just my thoughts and makes me happy I didn't have stock in them even though I saw and could have gotten in on it when it was 6 bucks a share before it spiked to like 29.87 or something like that. But I will say this I don't see him being taken out of the company after all the shit that's happened to them in the last 3 years and I think that's because the board is morons.
 
#53 ·
In 6 pages of posts there was minimal if any talk of
  • The materials used.
  • Technology behind the building of the board
  • Technology in the board itself
Aren't these the important factors in the quality of a board.
Not where, who, or how much labor costs as to the quality of a board

lots of conflict in the thread that is for sure, maybe a little more to come.....
 
#58 ·
This CEO doesn't. He owns roughly 4%, but 4% of a public company is still quite a bit. A private company Rhone owns the most.

It depends on how the bylaws are set up for electing the Board of Directors, plus how many interested directors can sit on the board. But yes an owner of 51% can definitely be fired. They can't have their shares taken away though, and will still be able to exert influence on the company.

BA you are right, most board members are yes men/women. They aren't intimately involved in the day to day operations of a company so they place heavy reliance on what the CEO tells them.

Hawkfan, the reason you can't find the $30 stock price is probably due to a stock split. So the highest price you will find will be 1/2 of the price BA probably remembers. Price quoting websites usually adjust prices to reflect splits. I bet if you search you'll see a split somewhere in the last few years.

Not for nothing, I do see that Moodys thinks Quiksilver will default on its debt placing it at the highest risk of reneging. Pretty shitty company is what they're trying to say.
 
#55 ·
BA, I'm with you buddy....think they tried too hard to extend themselves in a shit economy. They are now fucked. Not sure he was trying to line his pockets...more just ignorant to the fact that we were in a recession.

Good discussion...sorry for the corporate convo...got way overblown and was my fault...is the snow here yet???
 
#59 ·
I'm a regional director of sales. I own shares of stock, and am compensated with some in my bonus. At what point would you have thought that I wouldn't think a CEO owned large shares of our companies stock. Prime example, our CEO bases as 349K. Yet, his stock options make him very wealthy. I don't know how you didn't understand that I was quite aware CEOs owned massive amounts of stocks as part of their package.

All that said, it doesn't change the fact that once you go public, you are no longer the "owner" so to speak, and instead one of many. And you can be removed from power the minute you start comprising the welfare of the company.

Second, you don't read. Did you see my first post talking about the Board and the CEOs relationship. I absolutely said the board assigns the CEO. They represent the shareholder. Its all their in my first post, go read it.

Last, by buy out, I mean they offer a healthy severance to get rid of CEOs. Buyout was a rough term for what they do, but that's exactly what it is. They pay them with a negotiated severance to go away when they fail.

I find 2 things funny. First that you assume you are the only one that knows what he is talking about. Second, that you laughed that I referred to a CEO as an executive. That is exactly what they are in a public company, and their position as well as all C level jobs, and Director level positions are referred to as executive positions. Your packpedaling isn't going to save you from that colossal mistake. I also find it laughable that you would think I didn't realize a CEO owned shared of stock, when I am compensated with stock as a regional director.

Bottom line, you didn't read and made a lot of assumptions. This is my last post. You have flipped and flopped more than Obama in this thread, and we're here to talk about snowboards. I've done my part to blow up this thread, and won't do anymore. Sorry for my contribution of a good thread getting way off track.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top