Watcher Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16783571 What took him so long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 I cant see why he had to refuse it. he signed the deal, if the bank made so much he got a % of that. cant see the problem with it. apart from pure jeloursy from others, and that is all it is. You can bet the first job offer he has from a big bank that is not with in gov ownership he will be off. and who can blame him to be fair. And you cant see him pushing himself to make it even better because he knows that he wont get the due rewards for his extre work next time around. bite the hands that feed you springs to mind over the public out cry over this. Because on the back of this you may well find that now they will have to pay a larger yearly wage to these types of people to get them to work for them as no bonus will be offered. so then suddanly your in a postion where the that person is getting a huge wage even if he does not do well. And does that not sound like the public sector allready that we have. typical of small minded people who cant see past there nose. or the larger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 29, 2012 Share Posted January 29, 2012 But you do understand the issue here with the amount of money these people are being paid yet do not deliver (by playing a significant role in fucking up the economy). I admit, I don't know what the best solution is, but it is clear there is a problem when such people do not deserve the amounts they are paid. Though I think it is mistaken to believe that only vast sums of money can secure people who can do the job and do it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Gazza that is a shit rant mate. I'm not sure why anyone would want to earn that kind of money, it's a bit too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I half agree with Gazza.... Stuart Bridgewater was the Chief Exec of Land Securities Plc when the credit crunch wrecked the economy. He was therefore not party to bankers divvying up American sup-prime mortgage debt which ultimately caused the freezing of credit between banks. He worked within recently nationalised Northern Rock for a brief time before accepting a position as CEO with RBS, which is also obviously a nationalised bank. He took on a relatively low paid job (compared to CEO of Land Sec) trying to right a failing bank because he knew that he would be doing something good for the UK , and possibly world economy. This man needs a knighthood AND a bonus for helping to save a prominent high street bank along with it's customers savings and for his efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If the politicians want to run the bank, they should nationalise it and be done. This kind of influence isn't good for maintaining the taxpayers interests in this organisation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Gazza that is a shit rant mate. I'm not sure why anyone would want to earn that kind of money, it's a bit too much. It can never be a bit two much. at the end of the day weather he feels hes paid to much or not, that tends to be the going rate, your not going to say " no no i dont want 000sk a year, 20k a year will do" im sure you take the cash just like anyone eles bees. The point is the banker the gov the board agreed on this before he started work. and so he should not have to be made to look greedy and put it back by guilt just because asshole labour want to score some points with the genreal public., ha ha edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think he should be paid in Lupins. You can never have enough Lupins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I could be making this up, but wasn't he going to be paid in shares, rather than cash. I know that's right at least for the chairman who also turned them down. If this is the case, would he have been allowed to just sell them straight off, or would he have to keep them for a year - if he did he'd have an incentive to carry on doing a good job as if he screwed up his shares would end up being worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I am totally sick of this current thing about slagging people who earn lots of money, and am quite shocked the Conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon too. These wages/bonuses are beyond most peoples imagination but it has always been the way, you work hard you get into a very responsible job and you get paid fortunes. The mill owners in the north of england in their day earned far far more than the modern day bankers and the like. Popular sound bites is all it is and its not like the boss of RBS turning down his bonus today will make the slightest bit of difference to either the UK or his lifestyle, just a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade Runner Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I could be making this up, but wasn't he going to be paid in shares, rather than cash. I know that's right at least for the chairman who also turned them down. If this is the case, would he have been allowed to just sell them straight off, or would he have to keep them for a year - if he did he'd have an incentive to carry on doing a good job as if he screwed up his shares would end up being worthless. The bonus was in shares and he could not of sold them for, I think, at least 3 years, definitely not for at least 2. So yes he now has less incentive to do a good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I also don't know what to make of all this fuss. The only reason these people are paid so much is because companies pay them that much. These days it is an international market - they can work in Shanghai, Tokyo or New York as well as London, and in Dubai the government doesn't turn up and take 50% of your bonus off you in tax. Running billion pound turn over companies is difficult you make the wrong decisions it can cost shareholders lots - not many people have the skills to do it and there is a market for their talents. This bonus was in shares, I admit I'd rather he was paid in options which cannot be struck for 3 or so years, so that if the share price drops he gets absolutely nothing - I presume nowadays they could easily structure them to be valued on the relative performance of the company compared to the sector they are in. There are issues with rewarding poor performance and payment by results didn't stop Sir Fred driving RBS into the ground, but I mainly feel that is more to do with aligning the pay with performance of the company. That way Sir Fred would be as penniless as the shareholders. If Hestor turns around the bank good luck to him - and if it takes sacking 3000 people to do it - then get on with it. There is no point throwing good money after bad employing people inefficiently rather than releasing them to be more productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkin Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Gazza that is a shit rant mate. I'm not sure why anyone would want to earn that kind of money, it's a bit too much. no no i dont wank 000sk a year, snigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Gazza that is a shit rant mate. I'm not sure why anyone would want to earn that kind of money, it's a bit too much. no no i dont wank 000sk a year, snigger ha ha opps if carlsberg made perfect jobs lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 . Running billion pound turn over companies is difficult you make the wrong decisions it can cost shareholders lots - not many people have the skills to do it and there is a market for their talents. Yes, they are bright and have particular skills, but very few could be called exceptional in their talents. It is not the case that such people are paid and giving bonuses according to any exceptional talents that these people possess. This bonus was in shares, I admit I'd rather he was paid in options which cannot be struck for 3 or so years, so that if the share price drops he gets absolutely nothing - I presume nowadays they could easily structure them to be valued on the relative performance of the company compared to the sector they are in.I was listening on Radio 4 to how bankers had all their capital held on risk as per their decisions. In those days the top players had a lot to worry about were they to make bad decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.