dude, every CEO who ends up getting fired , gets mad money, make me wonder if they should feel sad or happy getting first

I Know one thing for sure, Im willin to setttle with 5 million anytime

Dude, You're gettin a golden parachute.

"Along with dropping his CEO post, Rollins is set to leave Dell's board of directors on May 4; the separation agreement was signed last week, Dell said in a filing with the SEC."

Telling, isn't it? Who cares about Dell--this guy was clearly in it for the money...HIS money.

There is the difference between a CEO who cares only about himself and someone who cares only about their company. Michael Dell will get his company back on the right track I hope. Too bad it took this long for it to happen, Dell has lost a huge amount of their good reputation in just the past 3 years.

Quite a shame that one selfish man can have so much negative influence on such a successful company.

You are g** d*** right about the money, it's his money. Without him and his group , Dell would never able to archive #1. He was helping out Dell since 1993, and officially part of their executive team from 1996. From 1993 to peak in 2000 the, Dell stock went from about 0.60 to about $57.60 with adjusted to splits. With with today's price, above $24, thats still 40 times, or 4000% return in 15 years. I cannot list too many companies that can archive this.

Yet, for someone who did so much work for the company and walk away with $5 millions, that's not a lot. If someone can justified Llyod Blankfein (Goldman Sachs CEO) for receiving $55 millions a year in total comp, for $5 million for someone who did the work, that's not a lot at all.

This anti position of yours that assumes any organization larger than 3 people at a cafeteria table constitutes some 'evil corporation' wears a bit thin. We've heard all of the old Left nonsense already.

How about he agreed to what was probably the terms of a contract that Dell had offered him! And whether you like or dislike the wages paid is besides the point.

And where do you get the idea that the CEO cares or doesn't care about the company!

Learn a bit more about the structure of a corporation! The CEO is not God! He is simply the most senior EMPLOYEE! The BOARD sets policy and he is charged with seeing that it is done! And if he fails then he is history!

So instead of simply blaming the CEO in your overly simplistic repetitive rants, how about complaining about the corporatt governance and how the board functions!

An I suspect that we will then have to explain that the Board is not some homogeneous body where they all agree on the vision and mission of a company! The Board sets the goals and determines the metrics by which the CEO is measured! So the CEO is just s 'big' employee as well! He does Not operate in some vacuum as an autonomous king as you fantasize!

Dell's plight is NOT due to one man! They rode the direct marketing BTO wave for too long. What was once a strategic marketing advantage is not longer sufficient to distinguish themselves.

And the Board is at fault for not seeing and setting evolving goals and standards and a more enlightened vision. The irony is that i think both he and the Board were in pretty tight agreement as he was there a long time in the hierarchy of the company.

Others have this and have moved deeper into a model of being solution providers, not simply machine providers, and Dell is way behind the curve.

So what is telling is the lack of understanding of how business and technology function. Just like direct marketing and BTO, the simplistic notion that tech and business are 2 separate disciplines instead of an integrated function are gone. And so is your tired old Left rant.

"This anti position of yours that assumes any organization larger than 3 people at a cafeteria table constitutes some 'evil corporation' wears a bit thin. We've heard all of the old Left nonsense already."

I'm actually not arguing that specifically--I'm saying that CEOs are getting more power. Sure, Kevin alone cannot destroy Dell, but he did lead them in a different dirrection that IMO caused Dell to lose market to HP.

Was he evil? Well, I'm not a mind-reader, and definately not a heart-reader, so I can't say for certain. I can say that he did at least want to benefit the company, but most of the benefit oddley enough was very short-term financially. Do I think he cares about Dell? Only to the point that it reflects his competence as a leader, yes.

My point was that Michael seems to truley care about Dell in the long run and he knows how to make Dell successful in the long-term and not just short-term as Rollins did. Rollins was trying to cut costs in areas he perceived were not important, but in my opinion he ended up ruining Dell's reputation when he wanted Dell to design "budget" PCs to compete with HP's $400 PCs. By doing this, the cheap Dell's turned out to be just that--cheap--and to customers, one or two bad Dell experiences = Dell sells crap. Word spread, and the combination of that and the fact that Dell consumer tech support has almost exclusively become outsourced = bad reputation.

A company's reputation is something that no long-term sales charts, historical data, analysis of high selling points, or service quality per division data can ever predict or explain. Rollins was too inexperienced and depended on numbers from existing figures and trends to predict the future, and he killed Dell's reputation so that Dell could gain a temporary surge of profits.

This is just my opinion and I could be wrong. Perhaps I was incorrect to say he was 'evil' because he may simply have been ignorant, but either way he seems to have been the benefitiary of the screw-up, and that is what I am saying is wrong here. Screw-ups should never be rewarded...

By the way--I am much farther right-winged than I am left. Right now as far as political parties, I believe both Republicans and Democrats have "lost the plot" per se, but I am far more conservative than I am liberal. Just FYI...