Schultz is out!

S

simonov jr

New member
George Colclough Named President of Smith & Wesson
The Associated Press
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGA1HSR90EC.html


SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) - George Colclough has been named president of Smith & Wesson, the company announced Friday.
Colclough succeeds Ed Shultz, who had been president of the handgun company, currently owned by British conglomerate Tomkins PLC, since 1992.

Shultz will remain president of Murray Inc., which was recently sold by Tomkins to Summersong Investments. He had been serving as president of both Smith & Wesson and Murray.

Colclough, who had been Smith & Wesson's vice president of administration, has worked for the company for 25 years. He is a lawyer and retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Murray, headquartered in Brentwood, Tenn., makes power mowers, snow blowers and bicycles.
 
Sounds like an attempt at damage control on the part of S&W. What's wrong boys? Can't seem to move much product????????
 
Good-bye, Mr. Shultz. Maybe you'll do better next time, when the Feds try to suppress the usage and availability of power mowers.
 
Is there a chance that Colclough will try to find a way out of the agreement? If not, then I don't care. But wouldn't it be nice to have some form of S&W back? I can't really afford it, but if they found a way to come back to the fold I'd immediately buy a brand new 686. You heard it here first.
 
OH CRAP!!!!

I didn't know Thompkins owned Murray. I just bought one of their mowers!!! :mad:

------------------
"Carry" on

Rick

I prefer armed combat to unarmed combat. It's easier on the knuckles.
 
Don't be so hard on Schultz. While he was the president of S&W, he reported to Tomkins, PLC. Federal thugs saw a good thing in squeezing S&W. 1) Business was not good for S&W which means Tomkins saw the company as a drag on earnings if not a true loss. 2) By threatening S&W with unending lawsuits, federal thugs amplified future losses to Tomkins if S&W fought. 3) and this is the key, federal thugs promised legal actions that would incur costs (legal and settlement) which exceeded the market value of S&W. In other words, federal thugs threatened to render Tomkins' investment in S&W worthless.

Tomkins made the right decision assuming the only factor of importance is business. Tomkins could care less about second amendment arguments. S&W was a poker chip on the table in a game between federal thugs and Tomkins.

Is S&W blameless? No, let 'em sink. The S&W brand will survive (its called "brand equity") but under new ownership.


------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
Tennessee! Say isn't that where all those Rifle Racked Pickup drivin' Red Neck Extreamists that he refered to live?

YeeeeeeeeeHawwwwwwwwwwwww!
 
Too Funny!!!

From Firearms to Bicycles... Another consumer product that is responsible for too many injuries, and deaths among our nations youth. It's time for Common Sense legislation on Bikes. :D
 
Let me think about this for a minute...... Should S&W go bankrupt, it fails to exist......then another co. buys its tooling, etc., capability to produce weapons. But since it is NOT S&W; it is no longer held to those pre-existing agreements; which died with the former firm. Ergo, we then have: new co., no agreements; and same products again.......Is this a possible win-win situation???????? :)
 
That SOB is sullying up MY state! Where's the tar and feathers? Where are the pitchforks and torches? The beast must die!

I'm not a right-wing extremist . . . but I play one on TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top