Typical- Fred the Shred getting 650k pa

b0rker

Cleaver wrote: »

We all love a good scapegoat to blame as it's a lot easier and more convenient that actually assessing and understanding the mass of complex issues that got us in to this situation.

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7911532.stm

Sir Fred's strategy and decision to buy ABN Amro is widely seen as making the bank more vulnerable to the credit crunch and having to be bailed out.

This guy was in charge when the above decision was made. No need for complex issues. Not a scapegoat. An incompetant. People who do not succeed at their profession do not deserve large pay offs nor large pensions. Success should be rewarded not gross incompetence.

The decision was made to give this incompetent a disgustingly large pension when the banks were seen to have the sun shining out of their ars3s. Now that we are all stuffing our money up what turned out to be a black hole these decisions need to be reversed.

Justifying such a disgustingly large pension when RBS was seemingly a succesful comapny would have been difficult enough. Now that the truth is known this pension is impossible for anyone to justify.

Cleaver

b0rker wrote: »

From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7911532.stm

This guy was in charge when the above decision was made. No need for complex issues. Not a scapegoat. An incompetant. People who do not succeed at their profession do not deserve large pay offs nor large pensions. Success should be rewarded not gross incompetence.

On a moral basis you're completely correct. But blame the people who gave him a contract with that pension in it and then let him get on with ruining the business. If the contract included this pension then he get's it. What else is there to do?

b0rker wrote: »

Justifying such a disgustingly large pension when RBS was seemingly a succesful comapny would have been difficult enough. Now that the truth is known this pension is impossible for anyone to justify.

Just to clarify, are you talking morally or legally? Two completely different discussions.

zombie

So I want to find out whose decision was this to give this imbecile £650K a year for life. I suspect it was someone at the Treasury?

That's it. I have made a decision NEVER to pay income tax ever again. I shall not contribute my hard earned efforts to this land ever again I run a very successful internet marketing company and earn six figures. I suggest everyone else who is self employed also stops paying their taxes until this government is replaced by people with brains and some common sense.

'Fred the Shred' helped himself to funds in one of my previous companies causing it to go under. I wouldn't be surprised if he woke up in bed one day and found a horse's head beside him. He'll need good security guards.

This government will not get a penny from me ever again. Ha ha ha!!!!

Cleaver

zombie wrote: »

So I want to find out whose decision was this to give this imbecile £650K a year for life. I suspect it was someone at the Treasury?

No, the board and HR team at RBS I guess. Isn't it the same pension scheme and payments that every RBS employee gets?

b0rker

Cleaver wrote: »

On a moral basis you're completely correct. But blame the people who gave him a contract with that pension in it and then let him get on with ruining the business. If the contract included this pension then he get's it. What else is there to do?

Agreed. I did think of this when writing my previous post. Not realy got an argument against that other than blaiming the people who gave him the contract does not change the fact that I don't agree that this contract should still stand at this point in time.

Cleaver wrote: »

Just to clarify, are you talking morally or legally? Two completely different discussions.

For me it goes beyond morals at this stage. It should be legal to prevent these payments to be made whilst the company is utilising public funds. He should be released from his contract in the very same way as anyone else can be if the have not met the expectations of his employers (us!). If we cannot see this great man in the same light as your public joe then lets measure him against someone who earns almost as much as him, a famous footballer.

Adrian Mutu was signed by Chealsea as a football player who was to do his best to uphold the good name of the club and play the best football that he can. He took cocaine harming no one but himself. Mutu was released half way through his Chealsea contract and has now been told by the courts that he has to pay reperation to Chealsea.

This Fred Goodwin screws the finances of hundreds of thousands of people yet we are expected to be happy for his contract to be fully hounoured? It is utter bullsh1t. I don't think that the British public will stand for this.

Why is thisass0le so untocuhable?!?!?

It is time that these bankers were brought down to the level that they have brought everyone else down to.

Reaper

Everyone elses pension pot has plummeted from the recession. How did he wrangle a fixed payout pension? Ah yes, the board voted themselves whatever they felt like and shareholding institutions didn't care as long as the share price went up.

When the market doesn't work that's when governments should regulate. In future maybe directors should have money purchase pensions with most of the funds invested in their own companies.

treliac

It's indefensible to give anyone that sort of a pension pot. Particularly someone who has caused such devastation to the very fabric of our society.

Makes me laugh at the indignant outpourings from MSE'ers at other public sector workers and their tiny, by comparison, pensions.

This man has failed his company, failed it's investors and we, the public, should in no way have to fund an incredibly comfortable and lengthy retirement for him.

The head of Baby P's social services department was 'released' without pension. Don't say it's not possible.

Fred, this woefully inadequate banker, should be chased for some of the losses he has been responsible for, which have seen men and women lose their jobs, businesses, homes, etc. etc. In fact, for the damage he has caused, he should lose his knighthood.

If it's not possible, the law should be changed to make it so. Otherwise, what hope is there of really changing the behaviour of these all powerful people? If there can be no consequences, things will eventually settle down and they'll be back to their immoral ways.

vivatifosi

There's some more information on this story coming out this morning.

First, the board members appear to have voted themselves massive pension increases in 2007, with Goodwin's 'pot' raising in value from £8.4m then to £16m now. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4836959/Sir-Fred-Goodwins-pension-topped-up-to-16m.html

In addition, Alistair Darling has threatened legal action this morning if he doesn't agree to forego the pension:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h6exIArQF-fOS1s-VW2f4v6x_ndg

Dylanwing

If the Government had let RBS go bust (As it should have done), would Fred still be able to draw this pension? Could the Government have let the Banks go bankrupt, then immediately stepped in to run them - Would this have invalidated previous employment contracts, so that employees would have either had to sign new contracts, or leave?

lynzpower

Im with Cleaver, really on this issue.

Id love to know how Darling thinks he can get away with stopping someones pension as the general public & peston et al up in arms. If the general public werent bothered, then im sure it would have sailed through unquestioned.

I wonder what sort of precedent this would set, could the chancellor put a stop to any of our pensions as rthey do or dont see fit