RBS chief to get £900,000 bonus

Graham_Devon

Ths straw that broke the camels back was Labour stating they were going to put forward a vote in the commons.

That's apparently the reason for this.

Again, while I didn't agree with the size of the bonus at this time, I don't really mind a bonus later on, IF the bank (not him) fulfills the criteria set out. but they are not. They are not fulfilling project merlin agreements, which Hester himself signed up to. This was part of the agreements of the bail out etc.

Shareholders are not likely to see dividends reinstated in the medium term. Shareholders themselves, if looking on share boards are not happy with the bonus.

It's my opinion that he can have the bonuses when shareholders are looking to get dividends back, the agreements set out in project merlin are being carried out etc.

As it is, and some of my dislike towards this bonus, a firm close to my family is about to go under due to RBS withdrawing previous credit agreements that have been in place for several years. of course, I don't know the in's and out's, but nothing for the business seems to have changed, apart from the withdrawal of credit facilities. Other business owners have been saying much the same on the BBC website.

So all factors considered, for the BANK, Hester may be good. But for us, the people who co-own it, the agreements have been broken and business, in some cases is suffering, as too, are shareholders.

And secondly, I detest the ransom calls from banks, using the "were too big, we'll do this if you don't play ball" line. Already that's started again, with some people suggesting he will now leave and the bank will go under. How far do we go with these sorts of blackmail issues? Just keep throwing more an dmore money at banks while ignoring their own failings in the agreements they have signed up to?

Miss_Havisham

Going4TheDream wrote: »

So he has not decided not to accept his bonus.

Whilst I thought it was a lot to offer as a bonus, especially when he hadn't met targets etc., it would seem his contract allowed for a bonus, I am just not not sure that 'trial by media' (which is what seems to have happened here) is the right way forward?

Too right, but he's a toughie - as hard and ruthless as any person in that sort of position would need to be, so this furore will be water off a duck's back.

Anyway, it's likely that the bonus has been deferred until the "public" can see, hear and feel that he has hit his targets and started to turn the bank round to the benefit of the country. Thats when he should start to reap his rewards.

Miss H

Graham_Devon

Apparently labour are now looking at the Long Term incentive bonus. I would assume this means they will rally against it. As a commentator stated, they taste blood, and they won't let go now.

Mistake in my view.

atush

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ths straw that broke the camels back was Labour stating they were going to put forward a vote in the commons.

That's apparently the reason for this.

Which is rich, considering it was Labour who hired him (and agreed the contract not the Con Dems).

People have a very short memory indeed. And if this keeps going, good people will go elsewhere.

Graham_Devon

atush wrote: »

Which is rich, considering it was Labour who hired him (and agreed the contract not the Con Dems).

People have a very short memory indeed. And if this keeps going, good people will go elsewhere.

That and the long term incentive is a different beast.

It's all hot air at the moment, through sources. But judging by how labour went on the bonus, I don't think we could really rule it out, especially after the coalition have stated today they will not do anything to block bonuses. Labour will be looking to jump on that one.

stampede

What surprises me is that a company that is making people redundant also are paying a bonus to others.
Surely if the company need to make redundancies then they are not in a position to give bonuses.
Hestons Bonus alone would probably save 50 peoples jobs.

CLAPTON

stampede wrote: »

What surprises me is that a company that is making people redundant also are paying a bonus to others.
Surely if the company need to make redundancies then they are not in a position to give bonuses.
Hestons Bonus alone would probably save 50 peoples jobs.

The government (Dave and George previously Gordon and Alastair) have instructured RBS to reduce their balance sheet.

In English that means reduce the size of the company

In English that means selling off and sacking over half the company

He is doing EXACTLY what aDave and George REQUIRE him to do.

If you don't like it NEVER EVER vote for the ConDem or the Labour party.

They ALL agree that's the RIGHT course of action.


Is that clear?

Hoopie1

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/ed-miliband-owes-britain-%C2%A3900m-201201314831/

atush

w

stampede wrote: »

What surprises me is that a company that is making people redundant also are paying a bonus to others.
Surely if the company need to make redundancies then they are not in a position to give bonuses.
Hestons Bonus alone would probably save 50 peoples jobs.

He was hired to put the company back in profit. One of the ways to do so, is redudancies. He was hired to slim down the workforce, not increase it or save jobs.