Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
BarryW's pinup boy and long time idol George Osborne came under fire last night after RBS boss Stephen Hester's £7.7million pay package was rubber-stamped.Shareholders queued up at the bank's annual meeting to voice disapproval at the bumper payout to the fatcat.
But the Chancellor refused to use the taxpayer's 83% stake from bailing out the bank to stop the deal.RBS lost about£1 billion last year under Hester, who replaced Fred Goodwin after the Treasury bailed out the bank. Lib Dem peer Lord Oakeshott said small businesses were still being denied finance. He said: "This is a remarkable reward for failure."
Labour leader Ed Miliband said: "The Government has not done nearly enough to keep the promise made to curb excessive bonus payments."
Our taxes are safe in Tory hands....complete tosh.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I do believe that good work deserves a good bonus, but until RBS/NatWest are back in the black, no one should receive such bonuses.
£7.7 million could have made a lot of difference to many small companies.
Makes some bankers look like some MPs. Profit and reward is good, greed is not.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Marek, oh really do get real.
Hester was not in charge when RBS fouled up and is the man who has the responsibility of returning RBS to health through which taxpayers can get their money back. If he achieves these objectives then he will deserve every penny and will also end up paying an awful lot of tax as a result. If the package includes some real incentives and for him to succeed and reward for doing so then good.
Idiotic class/banker hatred does not add to the debate
What on earth has your last sentence to do with the situation?
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
It doesnt matter BarryW whether he was in charge or not when the Bank fouled up...the fact of the matter is that bankers are continuing to award themselves vast amounts of money and clearly with government approval. In other words...The staus quo from the bad old days goes on.
Roger yes bonuses are okay at a certain level and when a company/business is thriving, but when a company or a business has almost committed mass hari-kari on a gynormous public scale and wrecking many lives in the process, then it is very hard to justify this level of bonus. Certainly the public at large does not see this as justified.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
PaulB
Of course it matters.
We want RBS to be turned from a basket case to a thriving business so the shares can be sold at a profit, repaying the taxpayers to reduce the level of debt.
To do that it needs a leader with the right abilities and skill set.
The pay of such a person is determined by a number of factors that include:
The size of the organisation and the responsibilities that the job entails.
The scale and difficulty of the task ahead.
The global economy in which that business operates and the job market for that Chief Executive.
If you want someone to take on that role then you must pay them a remuneration package that is appropriate.
I would suggest that those who are objecting just see the headline £7m figure without understanding the other factors. You cannot ignore the context of the role and must pay the appropraite rate or you wont get the right person to do the job.
This is the real world of commerce and no place for socialist envy and spite.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
when i have worked for companies that were not in the black, i never received a bonus despite my profit centre thriving.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Barry I hope you run your company better than the way you talk in your posts mate. I just had to have a say in this one.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Vic - I do well thank you. If you cannot provide a specific and intelligent counter to the points I raised then don't bother because you just make a fool of yourself with inane comments.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
No envy no spite just quoting todays press release. The bonuses handed to these chaps regardless of the banks performane is disgraceful.
To use the analogy of football ( along with socialists another of your great hates) The manager bears the brunt for his teams poor performance.
Being a team player,sharing the responsibility is something that self motivated,money loving tories fail to grasp.And as for "getting real" I like many forumites live in the real world worried by increasing fuel, energy and food costs. These w****rs are only worried where the next million will come from. The money awarded comes from tax payers who are struggling to make ends meet.
Keep to the facts and refrain from personal attacks.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
He still gets paid less than prats like Wayne Rooney. Nobody seems to object to his salary. Then there are entertainers like Elton John who also earns a multiple of the top bankers' packages.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Peter
Footballers and entertainers dont ask the tax man to bail them out when times are hard they do the decent thing and top themselves. I have not heard of any bankers throwing themselves off the top of the cucumber building.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
there is no comparison with sports stars and entertainers, some earn sky high money because we the public choose to pay money to watch them.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Marek - the specific individual did not ask to get 'bailed out' in fact he is appointed to get the taxpayers their money back. True, there is no comparison to footballers and entertainers, unlike them the head of RBS has an important and necessary job to do and if he succeeds we will all benefit and that is why he should be paid the going rate for that job and deserves not to be vilified by left wing whingers.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
barry
because someone does not agree with you it is not due to "left wing whinging" or "socialist envy".
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Entertainers entertain and make us happy. What do bankers do...they lose £1 billion of which £840 million is tax payers dish dosh...I don't see many people dancing in the banks aisles with lit lighters in their hands swaying from side to side singing along in merriment.....
Say no more
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - that comment was an observation on what has been said and not because of disagreement.
No-one has put a cohesive counter to the points I made to substantiate the other view, so that reduces the view to a whinge. I have seen no case against based on logical and intelligent arguments, prejudice only.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i thought the case was clear barry, the money being shelled out is from the taxpayers pocket, when someone makes a career out of signing on and choosing to watch day time t.v. we are up in arms.
at the end of the day both are living off of the rest of us.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No it is not Howard.
The money paid in salary for this man is from RBS commercial activities. As taxpayers we want a return of the bail-out cash that was secured by share acquisitions. Taxpayers will benefit from dividends that arise from the profits of those same commercial activities that pay the Chief Execs salary. The level of those dividends depend on the decisions and leadership of the RBS Chief Exec. Additionally taxpayers will be repaid the bail-out cash from the sale of RBS shares, the value of those shares and when that value can be realised also depend on that Chief Exec's leadership.
If you want a monkey in charge of RBS then pay peanuts but if you want someone up to the job then you have to pay the going rate.
The only clear case that has been made is to pay the man what the market requires.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
Was Fred Goodwin paid peanuts, Barry?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Mark but the man was clearly a monkey nevertheless and paid too much heed to Gordon Brown when told them to go out and take risks in that famous Mansion House speech. Other bank Chief Execs had more sense, like HSBC and Lloyds TSB for instance (the latter until talked into taking over the ailing HBOS that is..., once again by Brown) and to a lesser extent the Barclays Chief Exec as well.