Race Face's Demise - An Insiders' View

Wasn't Kooka somehow related to FJ at some point?

i think his dad was involved with it

Having seen Craig Pollack in action from his start at Rocky Mountain, none of this surprises me at all. Many people loved the work at Race Face but intensely disliked working for/with CP. He didn't "build" Race Face, it was as much as given to him when it split away from Rocky. When one realizes that he was hired by Grayson Bain you can see the apple does not fall far from the tree.

Grayson, as well, had family members on the RMB payroll and was a week away from having the doors locked by the banks in the early '90s. Only an investor with deep pockets saved the company at that time.

Race Face suceeded to this point in spite of CP not because of him. Am I surprised that his true colours finally showed-no, but I am surprised that he managed to destroy a great brand that a lot of people put their heart [HTML_REMOVED] soul into and screw it into the ground. The truly passionate folks were the ones on the floor not in the boardroom.

I personally hope Craig never makes another dime on the bike industry. He deserves nothing at this point.

Fighting tooth and nail for a 10 cent raise back in the day makes perfect sense now lol.

Grayson, as well, had family members on the RMB payroll…

I believe this is common practice for privately held companies. It's a completely legal way to limit income taxes. Nothing wrong with it.

If Craig Pollack was really looting the company, there's something very wrong. The fraud started with the bogus bank loan. Looks like he was playing a game of catch-up and finally got caught.

Thanks for the story Cam. You're fogiven for the $30 membership debacle ;)

interesting story, i don't know how accurate the financial numbers are that are being spoke of, but i wonder how many of us here would pay ourselves a hefty salary like that given the chance.
performance machine is the shop where kooka went

It was called Performance Development.

I believe this is common practice for privately held companies. It's a completely legal way to limit income taxes. Nothing wrong with it.

Oh jeezus. Craig Pollack posts as "ChunkyMonkey"?

Oh jeezus. Craig Pollack posts as "ChunkyMonkey"?

Did you not read what I wrote? Or did you just not understand it?

Did you not read what I wrote? Or did you just not understand it?

i think he called you a douche bag.

not sure, but thats what im reading here.

it sucks that so many good people lost their job…but 400k/yr for running a 10 mil/yr company doesn't seem out of line to me at all.

In a private company you can pay yourself as much as you want. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But what if your compensation is making it impossible to pay bills and service your debt? That might be an issue.

Business is business. Doesn't matter what the industry there are good and bad. I have no doubt he could do the things he did and I agree his pay does not seem out of line, but at some point it would be nice to see him be the kind of guy we all wish he was.

This guy didn't need to do this at all but he did….

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29396039/ns/business-us_business/

In a private company you can pay yourself as much as you want. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But what if your compensation is making it impossible to pay bills and service your debt? That might be an issue.

i totally hear what you are saying. but his isnt communist china.

would i run that business into the ground ..? no i wouldn't.

it sounds as tho there was more to RF's demise than this salary issue.

FTR: i have good friends that work there and lost their jobs as well as i love the product and have been riding it for 10 yrs. very sad to see a proudly canadian company go under.

I believe this is common practice for privately held companies. It's a completely legal way to limit income taxes. Nothing wrong with it.

In a private company you can pay yourself as much as you want. I don't think anyone is disputing that. But what if your compensation is making it impossible to pay bills and service your debt? That might be an issue.

^ not completely correct. this assumes the one receiving the funds (Pollack or his related parties) own 100% of the shares of said company. If he owns less than 100% and is removing capital from the company via wages, he could be screwing the other shareholders (if they don't know about the payments).

Regardless of the nuances, IMO Pollack is a failure as a CEO, busienssman and leader. As CEO he is solely responsible for the stewardship of the company, it's employees, customer relationships, lenders and shareholders, all of whom he failed. Since the demise of the company was due to lending criteria, i'd suggest that the CFO could also be partially responsible (unknowningly perhaps).

IF investors and other stakeholders support Pollack in a new venture, they'll have to sleep in the bed they've made and shouldn't be surprised with what they get after this unfortunate (and unnecessary) failure.