RBS chief to get £900,000 bonus

jonnyd281

CLAPTON wrote: »

the answer is that the footballer's salary is paid for by people who choose to pay to go to football matches, buy sponsored products, pay for sky sport etc

whilst the CEO's salary is determined by remuneration committees which are made up of other CEOs or company directors whose salary is determined by remuneration committees made up of directors or CEOs whose salary is determined by remuneration committees made up of .........

Yet the companies all make money paid for by people (in the case of a bank) paying money into savings accounts, current accounts and such like, and your argument about being paid for by the people going to watch the matches still doesn't make the little thugs worth £1M a year.

CLAPTON

jonnyd281 wrote: »

Yet the companies all make money paid for buy people (in the case of a bank) paying money into savings accounts, current accounts and such like, and your argument about being paid for by the people going to watch the matches still doesn't make the little thugs worth £1M a year.

I don't really disagree

but you don't HAVE to contribute to footballers' income whilst we do have to contribute to RBS as we taxpapyers have bailed them out

Jennifer_Jane

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is that different to most other CEOs?

If his take over of ABN Amro had been a great success and RBS was an international success story, would you make the same comment that he ran it as his private fiefdom?

in any event what about the chairman Sir Tom something?
the failures at the head of FSA and BoE ?

Archer is still a lord etc etc

To answer your first question: not to my knowledge: I understand he was rather different from CEO's I have known, although I didn't know him, of course.

Had the take over of ABN Amro been successful and RBS an international success story, would I have made the same comment - I may well have done, but the chances are that I wouldn't have known, or cared, how he was running the business - it was only when it came to the notice of the taxpayers that we became interested in it. Had I been a shareholder, I may well have been interested in his management style.

Sir Tom McKillop received his knighthood for services to the Pharmaceutical industry, not for banking. His problem was naivety in taking the banking role (he said this himself). The only reason to revoke his knighthood would have been his role in lying to the public and shareholders about the state RBS was in - although it may have been that he was lied to rather than he deliberately misled the public, press, and shareholders.

Re Lord Archer, I wasn't in the UK during all the publicity about him so am unsure of all the details, but you raise an interesting argument. If you are convicted of perjury, fraud, or whatever he was flung into gaol for, then yes, perhaps honours should be removed. As for FSA, etc - possibly - I have little idea of what the cost to the taxpayer has been as a result of their mistakes (apart from just not doing their jobs).

Frankly, I think Sir Tom's role in this mess is too vague - he was new in the business and was probably just too amenable. And for Lord Archer, I think that's a reasonable, but different, debate to have.

wotsthat

ILW wrote: »

How do we know?
The shareholders (UK taxpayers) who ultimately pay the bonus, are not allowed to see the contract.

It's quite a new phenomenom about UK taxpayers being posessive of ownership in a nationalised industry.

I'm pretty sure that no-one referred to British Rail as taxpayer owned. That was state owned - can't see the difference myself except taxpayer owned might imply the taxpayer got something in exchange for the bailout. Maybe it softens the blow for those who remember just how inefficiently government ran state owned companies.

The UK taxpayer owns nothing - the taxpayer bought the bank from private ownership and yet when they are reprivatised the ownership will be sold to taxpayers who thought they already owned the bank anyway.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What makes this man worth (in monetry terms) 117 serving British soldiers who risk their own lives for us?

The fact that he can run a bank with a £2 trillion balance sheet and they can't.

It's a very crude comparison. One that can't even be taken seriously..

Indeed.

So a pointless comparison to make then.

CLAPTON

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

To answer your first question: not to my knowledge: I understand he was rather different from CEO's I have known, although I didn't know him, of course.

Had the take over of ABN Amro been successful and RBS an international success story, would I have made the same comment - I may well have done, but the chances are that I wouldn't have known, or cared, how he was running the business - it was only when it came to the notice of the taxpayers that we became interested in it. Had I been a shareholder, I may well have been interested in his management style.

Sir Tom McKillop received his knighthood for services to the Pharmaceutical industry, not for banking. His problem was naivety in taking the banking role (he said this himself). The only reason to revoke his knighthood would have been his role in lying to the public and shareholders about the state RBS was in - although it may have been that he was lied to rather than he deliberately misled the public, press, and shareholders.

Re Lord Archer, I wasn't in the UK during all the publicity about him so am unsure of all the details, but you raise an interesting argument. If you are convicted of perjury, fraud, or whatever he was flung into gaol for, then yes, perhaps honours should be removed. As for FSA, etc - possibly - I have little idea of what the cost to the taxpayer has been as a result of their mistakes (apart from just not doing their jobs).

Frankly, I think Sir Tom's role in this mess is too vague - he was new in the business and was probably just too amenable. And for Lord Archer, I think that's a reasonable, but different, debate to have.

I take a very unfashionable view. We ought indeed to have rules and regulations, laws etc and we should stick to them.

Just because all three political parties and the press have whipped up a feeding frenzy about top pay and bankers bonuses, I don't think we should make a ritual sacrifice.

If Fred has specifically broken a rule that means he loses his knighthood then so be it. But the reality is that he is simply a hate figure and I don't like mop rule.

By all means have a reasoned debate about top pay, bonuses and punishment for 'failure' but what we see here is an incoherent populist witch hunt.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So a pointless comparison to make then.

As pointless as comparing to footballers. But I don't see you taking offence to that.

tartanterra

I think the size of the bonus is ill advised in the current economic climate.

However.....

It seems ludicrous to me, that Ed Milliband is the leader of a party which Knighted "Sir" Fred Goodwin, the man who broke RBS, yet rages against a bonus for the man who is turning the bank round.

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

Is that different to most other CEOs?

CEO's do have their own styles. Not all treat employees, shareholders and customers alike with contempt.

Thrugelmir

[QUOTE=tartanterra;50571373

It seems ludicrous to me, that Ed Milliband is the leader of a party which Knighted "Sir" Fred Goodwin, the man who broke RBS, yet rages against a bonus for the man who is turning the bank round.[/QUOTE]

That's because they have a lack of genuine policy currently. Get in the media by taking a completely opposed view.

Yawn.....