The re-branded company he was forced out of is now the largest diamond retailer in the world- so I'd say that the problem was him and his mouth, not an inevitable flip in fortune.
It's also possible he wasn't a real problem, but when his remarks caused a temporary (big) problem for the company, other stakeholders saw the opportunity to take control.
There's probably a counterfactual universe where he remained in his position, he learned a valuable lesson on keeping his mouth shut in public, and the company re-branded and recovered on a similar trajectory.
Zuckerbergs infamous "People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me'. Dumbfucks" springs to mind. While I'm sure there is some amount of long term damage, you'd be hardpressed to say it has crippled Facebook.
The tired analogy is premised of that this was some "final piece".
It wasn't, the company was going from strength to strength.
And whether "eventually it would flip" is another thing, and is irrelevant to this argument. Sure, every company will go down at some point.
That doesn't validate the idea put forward that this was some kind of "final piece" and the company was ready to flip anyway. There's absolutely no evidence for that. Your argument presupposes what it should prove.
