• The post you are reporting:
   
  Howard - the case aginst him getting the bonus is purely an emotional not a logical one. Some simple facts:
  
  1/ He did not cause RBS problems and was brought in to turn the business around and get it ready for re-privatisation with the shares sold and taxpayers getting the money back plus some profit.
  
  2/ There is a very small pool of people with the right experience and proven ability who can take on such a challenge as this company. It is a very high paid pool of people. The high reward is determined by that market.
  
  3/ Taking on such a high profile job is a high risk one and a high risk deserves high reward. This row alone demonstrates how risky it is. A job like this is highly political and high profile. He is an open target for anyone to interfere with what he considers needs to be done including politicians who simply do not have a clue. He would pay a high price if he is deemed to fail.
  
  4/ It is in the interests of taxpayers for him to be a success. His bonus is paid as shares. The value of those shares and therefore the true value of that bonus will be reflected in whatever he eventually sells them for. If he is successful it is a win win, he will make a lot of money on the shares for his success and so do the taxpayers.
  
  The fact is there is a very good business case to make for him receiving this bonus. To summarise, it is a market case with an additional risk based justification and an enlightened self-interest case for the taxpayers.
  
  The case against is based on cheap populism of the lowest common denominator.

Report Post

Your Name

Reason