If you keep getting away with the same old crap, it becomes the accepted norm. But we dont think it should. It is boring but we keep banging on about it.
Crowdcube's latest campaign is for Vita Mojo - it has crossed its £1.5m line within a few days. Truth is the line was actually £500k. Impressive but not quite Carling.
So why are they allowed to dress these things up? In this pitch you have to search for the £1m input, off platform, from The Elior Group, as it appears at the bottom of the Exit section. Why?
You are told they invested at the same price, but you are not told what the terms were in full.
Just as we thought phew, that's enough of the Crowdcube cock ups, the DD dept have excelled themselves again - see image above. In the excellent video for this company's campaign, passed as fit and proper by CC, there is a glaring altfact. Ewan Stickley, who appears in the video alongside this image's description, as a big hitting endorsement, was never the Operations Director at Pret a Manger as the video claims - he was the Operations manager for London. There is a big difference you know. He has never been a Director of anything apart from his own small business training company. We are sure Mr Stickley doesnt even know his name is being misused - his Linkedin page is accurate. Why do Crowdcube have to do this shit time and time again?
the response given to the Ewan Stickley issue
ReplyDelete"Hi TTT159,
Thank you the kind words, we're very happy with the response! Thanks also for taking the time to look at our campaign. I will answer both your forum posts in this reply.
Ewan's Stickley joined Pret A Manager when they had just 8 sites (all of which in London). At that time, Ewan came on board as Prets "Operations Manager". During his 10 year tenure at Pret from 1994 to 2004, the company grew from 8 locations to 120 and as you can appreciate the company structure and job titles changed quite a bit over time until the role of "Operations Director" appeared.
Furthermore, as you point Ewan's LinkedIn profile states he was Operations Manager for London. That is accurate as at that time, Pret only existed in London.
You're also correct in that Ewan was not listed as a Director on Companies house for Pret. However, I don't think that has a bearing on his job title. I for example held the title of Director at Schroders without being actually being listed on Companies House. This is a pretty common thing.
So in summary, given Ewan's extended career at Pret, as well as his impact on Pret's Operations in the early days (and the fact we have only a few seconds in the video to explain who Ewan is) the title used in the video is a fair representation of his role.
Thanks again for considering investing in Vita Mojo and please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. Would be glad to meet you or speak on the phone if you wish.
Kind Regards,
Nick"
It is a fair explanation as far as it goes. However as anyone who has been involved in a start up knows - not a bank such as Schoeders were VPs are like confetti - the use of the term Director means that this person is a Director - not a manager. He will be listed at CH as a Director just so people can check out his credentials. nothing wrong with being a very successful Operations Manager and we not that he himself only calles his role 'manager'. Its the founders of Vita who have inflated this position to help big up their gravitas. The role of operations dircetor 'appeared' is short hand for we made it up. You have to wonder what else has been big upped along the way. Its not one we would touch.
ReplyDeleteFurther on this - if the guy describes himself as ex Operations Manager at Pret, it takes an interestingly devious mind to conflate this to Ex Operations Director and then to claim that this latter role 'appeared' on his tenure. Why not stick tyhr description the guy gives himself? Well of course it's because it makes his gravitas 100 times more influential. You investors will have to hope that the massive uptick in revenues is not just to 'appear' in 2018 as if by some magic known only to the founders.
DeleteAs far I'm aware, Crowdcube et al can't hide behind their T&C's and contract out of their obligations or liabilities under the Financial Services and Markets Act. Statutes pretty much always trump contracts. Section 397 of the FSMA deals with misleading statements and practices http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/8/section/397 and it is clear, at least to me, that what Crowdcube and, in all likelihood, many of the directors/promoters of these startups are doing is a criminal offence.
ReplyDelete