So the average worker has to work for nothing

[Beach Hut]

He delivered all right.

The biggest company loss in British Comercial History.

He was an egotist who was given too much power.

Maybe so also the Executive Board is the blame for his appointment as well.

 

[Buzzer]

Quoted by Buzzer
"Sir Fred could command any salary that he asked for."
Yes by your definitions he should only be paid on results.

In this case he should be sued for every penny has left for causing such reckless social destruction.

Disagree. As tempting as it sounds, the shareholders, who employed him and sanctioned his actions are the ones who have to take the hit. There's also the problem of "piercing the corporate veil" to go for the individuals. As long as there has not been criminal activity then Sir Fred shouldn't be able to be sued.

I agree that the policy of light regulation on exotic financial instruments has proved to be disastrous. A classic example of Politicians not fully understanding the modern markets. Same could be said about their understanding of technology and the internet, but fact is that RBS worked within the rules and the Government did nothing to rock the boat whilst the profits rolled in. Before you say it, I doubt the Tories would have done much if anything better but fact is it did happen on Labour's watch.

What amazes me is that, similar to crap Premiership managers, these same top men who have failed so spectacularly, will all end up with tasty non-exec positions despite their obvious flakiness.

 

[Beach Hut]

I think it is totally unfair to blame individuals the FSA should take a long look at what they were regulating.

 

[simonsimon]

"The point people always miss as well these people have to produce otherwise they are out often resented but they are under the kosh the whole time hence the high rewards."

Quoted by Beach Hut

I pressume Asil Nadir was another of your financial heroes?

 

[Beach Hut]

"The point people always miss as well these people have to produce otherwise they are out often resented but they are under the kosh the whole time hence the high rewards."

Quoted by Beach Hut

I pressume Asil Nadir was another of your financial heroes?

Convicted criminal so no, Goodwin has committed no financial fraud bar losing his company a fortune.

 

[simonsimon]

"Goodwin has committed no financial fraud bar losing his company a fortune. "
Quoted by Beach Hut.

and costing the British Taxpayers Billions in the process, debts that will take a generation to repay.

He should be stripped of his Knighthood and his ill gotten pensions

 

[Buzzer]

"The point people always miss as well these people have to produce otherwise they are out often resented but they are under the kosh the whole time hence the high rewards."

Quoted by Beach Hut

I pressume Asil Nadir was another of your financial heroes?

Interesting you should say him. It's only after the likes of Polly Peck, Mirror Group, Barings Bank, Enron etc etc etc that the authorities can act to control what happens because modern business moves so quickly that it doesn't give them time to fully appreciate the consequences and regulate. 99% of businesses (including the top FTSE companies) are run properly and the new laws for them are nothing more than an extra burden.

However, it's nigh on impossible to stop determined criminal activity by the 1%. Who'd have thought that one of the world's largest Wall Street Firms was just a giant Ponzi scheme?

 

[Beach Hut]

"Goodwin has committed no financial fraud bar losing his company a fortune. "
Quoted by Beach Hut.

and costing the British Taxpayers Billions in the process, debts that will take a generation to repay.

He should be stripped of his Knighthood and his ill gotten pensions

So did several others as well so it should not be down to individuals. Sick people cost the tax payer money cause they go to hospital shall we deny them this ?

 

[simonsimon]

A vast difference in scale.

 

[bhaexpress]

Whilst all the fat cats have been getting six figure allowances over the past number of years.

I find it laughable. I wonder how much Willie Walsh has paid himself.

Does he really think people will agree to him?

I reckon if they paid you nothing you'd still be overpaid.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

Management seems to be a lost skill now. People seem to be able to blag jobs, as your salary goes up that seems to be enough to move you onto another higher paid job rather than somebody actually looking to see what you can do. The 'competence' culture is rife and peopl are told what they need to put into an application so it is this skill rather than aptitude, attitude and proof of ability that seems to count.

I am in the public sector and it's rife with 'yes' men who have got on by saying the right things. now we have organisations shorn of ability where everthing is passed on and nobody takes responsibility. We need some kick 'ass old managers who would make decisions and put their judgement on the line.

It could be said that that's what Mr goodwin did. But taking the money and putting your reputation on the line only works if you take the responsibility. He took the money with no qualms. he should be stripped of his Knighthood.

The trouble with success is too much can turn your head and you get lax or careless. Everybody has a shelf life, that is why you need good, ambitious, people coming through not more yes men.

If those at the top take the money for doing well then they must also take the chop when it goes wrong too.

 

[Easy 10]

Willie Walsh has turned down his annual bonus for the last 3 years running. He turned it down in 2007 after the Terminal 5 fiasco, 2008 after performance targets weren't met, and now this year due to the current financial crisis (he was still entitled to receive those bonuses within BA's committee rules).

I'm sure he'll do alright for himself in the long run, but its mildly refreshing to see a CEO with at least a degree of humility in all this trough-culture.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Willie Walsh has turned down his annual bonus for the last 3 years running. He turned it down in 2007 after the Terminal 5 fiasco, 2008 after performance targets weren't met, and now this year due to the current financial crisis (he was still entitled to receive those bonuses within BA's committee rules).

I'm sure he'll do alright for himself in the long run, but its mildly refreshing to see a CEO with at least a degree of humility in all this trough-culture.

he can afford too , you need to clean your tongue.

 

[Easy 10]

he can afford too , you need to clean your tongue.

Yeah he can.
But you don't often see Directors turning down bonuses that they are "entitled" to (within the rules blah, blah).

Fancy a frenchie ?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

greed , greed and more greed its all the name of the game.

 

[RoganDoss]

Fred the Shred's current endeavours

Well, apart from fleeing to France and reminding us all how little we should trust the fat cats, as you all so rightly describe, what else is Fred the Shred up to these days?...

YouTube - Fred The Shred

That's what!

 

[Acker79]

The point people always miss as well these people have to produce otherwise they are out often resented but they are under the kosh the whole time hence the high rewards.

Which is unfair really, he should be given at least one season, and should be backed by the shareholders, putting in the money for him to sign his own workers and build the workforce himself. After of year of bedding in, he can then push on for a promotion next year...

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

I'm up here in the City and I find it pretty difficult to stick up for Fred. In a nutshell, it seems he was the boss, he made the decisions and more fool those who stood in his way. Whilst everything was going great and his aquisitions were proving successful no one dared say anything......so the shareholders paid him whatever he wanted and he just kept going. No one could forecast what was up ahead, but the whole world, at the very least, had small doubts about whether the climate could continue in the same vein regardless.
Was he alone at RBS in pushing ahead with ABN....to be honest, I think he probably was........and therefore he needs to be called to account.
By the same token it is entirely unethical and against all law to force him to repay some of what he has been paid.....but it is difficult to respect the guy for not offering to take a reduced pension. Darling should have got himself personally involved in Goodwins compensation package and the fact that he didn't should have meant him being fired from the cabinet.

 

[drew]

Usual shit from the down trodden who can't make it in management so slag of those that are our captains of industry.

He deserves that salary as he has the skills to run a very large company - how many others can do that ?

He deserves a large salary for a company losing money! When you're on £61k a month, a very sizeable proportion of that is your disposable income. When your only on £2k a month then your disposable income becomes a much smaller % and the hit is harder to take.

Disagree. As tempting as it sounds, the shareholders, who employed him and sanctioned his actions are the ones who have to take the hit. There's also the problem of "piercing the corporate veil" to go for the individuals. As long as there has not been criminal activity then Sir Fred shouldn't be able to be sued. It's not just the shareholders who are suffering from his and others incompetence. Also, there does not need to be criminal activity to sue. Anyone affected could decide to sue on the grounds of his negligence, that's what Civil Courts are for.

I agree that the policy of light regulation on exotic financial instruments has proved to be disastrous. A classic example of Politicians not fully understanding the modern markets. Same could be said about their understanding of technology and the internet, but fact is that RBS worked within the rules and the Government did nothing to rock the boat whilst the profits rolled in. Before you say it, I doubt the Tories would have done much if anything better but fact is it did happen on Labour's watch. Marvellous, on these pages we see endless threads about interferring Government and the nanny state but when it all goes pearshaped people then cry out for more regulation.

What amazes me is that, similar to crap Premiership managers, these same top men who have failed so spectacularly, will all end up with tasty non-exec positions despite their obvious flakiness.

Always happens, golden handshake to go quietly and avoid any compensation claims.

Interesting you should say him. It's only after the likes of Polly Peck, Mirror Group, Barings Bank, Enron etc etc etc that the authorities can act to control what happens because modern business moves so quickly that it doesn't give them time to fully appreciate the consequences and regulate. 99% of businesses (including the top FTSE companies) are run properly and the new laws for them are nothing more than an extra burden.

However, it's nigh on impossible to stop determined criminal activity by the 1%. Who'd have thought that one of the world's largest Wall Street Firms was just a giant Ponzi scheme?

You are not just regulating against criminal activity but also incompetence and negligence as well.

 

[DJ Leon]

Usual shit from the down trodden who can't make it in management so slag of those that are our captains of industry.

He deserves that salary as he has the skills to run a very large company - how many others can do that ?

I reckon I could f**k it up just as well as he could. I can't see why pay for 'captains of industry' shouldn't be related to performance (Hang on, aren't you a Tory? Shouldn't you be arguing that?)

Are you going to tell us now that the financial sector is full of wunderkinds who justifably earn monumental wages and bonuses?