RBS Fred Goodwin and 650k p.a pension at 50!
Discussion
Fact
1. man heads bank with other men on the board
2. business fails
3. govt takes over
4. man gets fired after agreeing terms of payout with govt.
Probabilities
1. man and other members of board on similar payout packages. (board members sacrifice and main man gets rich?? i dont think so)
2. Govt might get sued for breach of confidentiality for big bucks. (IMO fred should sue the govt till it bleeds, no one will take up any high position job in this country anymore because of lack of confidentiality and press intrusion)
3. main mans family and friends have been tarnished and disrespected in society. (why??? this is business)
Business is business...you make a bad deal..u live with it..just like buying a lemon of a car!
1. man heads bank with other men on the board
2. business fails
3. govt takes over
4. man gets fired after agreeing terms of payout with govt.
Probabilities
1. man and other members of board on similar payout packages. (board members sacrifice and main man gets rich?? i dont think so)
2. Govt might get sued for breach of confidentiality for big bucks. (IMO fred should sue the govt till it bleeds, no one will take up any high position job in this country anymore because of lack of confidentiality and press intrusion)
3. main mans family and friends have been tarnished and disrespected in society. (why??? this is business)
Business is business...you make a bad deal..u live with it..just like buying a lemon of a car!
Los Angeles said:
Invisible man said:
I hope Goodwin takes it all the way
You guys cheering one bad guy and booing the other take the biscuit.Lloyds has plunged 10 billion since yesterday. What makes you think there will be bank left to pay Goodwin a luncheon voucher, let alone his pension?
amaftauhoo said:
bobbylondonuk said:
Fact
1. man heads bank with other men on the board
2. business fails
3. govt takes over
4. man gets fired after agreeing terms of payout with govt.
re point no 4. I was under the impression it was a resignation.1. man heads bank with other men on the board
2. business fails
3. govt takes over
4. man gets fired after agreeing terms of payout with govt.
Brown, Darling and co haven't handled this at all well but Goodwin took the bank to the verge of bankruptcy and seems to believe he should be rewarded for it, none of them come out of this with any credit at all whilst the shareholders have suffered all the pain.
sa_20v said:
Well the City only facilitated the general public's desire to borrow beyond their means - no one complained with a brand new BMW on their drive, living in a house they could ill-afford. The City has been used as a scapegoat in my opinion, you should perhaps ask why the government took away control on the level of national debt when they came to power.
I thought the majoirty of the "toxic debt" was from the US housing market brought into our financial system by the city, not our own home grown debt? It was always going to end in tears when we started relying on the financial industry as the sole bread winner.
Invisible man said:
Los Angeles said:
Invisible man said:
I hope Goodwin takes it all the way
You guys cheering one bad guy and booing the other take the biscuit.Lloyds has plunged 10 billion since yesterday. What makes you think there will be bank left to pay Goodwin a luncheon voucher, let alone his pension?
Edited by polus on Saturday 28th February 10:59
Just remember that up until 2 years ago he was making a fortune for the government (taxes), for the shareholders, employees (bonuses etc) and everyone was extremely happy with him and his work.
Why not take off a small chunk of his pension fund??
It is most certainly not fair for him to loose his pension as that is what he is going to live off for the rest of his life.
Just what I recon.
ETA: I havn't read the entire thread sorry if someone else had already made this point
Why not take off a small chunk of his pension fund??
It is most certainly not fair for him to loose his pension as that is what he is going to live off for the rest of his life.
Just what I recon.
ETA: I havn't read the entire thread sorry if someone else had already made this point
Edited by The Moose on Saturday 28th February 11:01
The Moose said:
Just remember that up until 2 years ago he was making a fortune for the government (taxes), for the shareholders, employees (bonuses etc) and everyone was extremely happy with him and his work.
Why not take off a small chunk of his pension fund??
It is most certainly not fair for him to loose his pension as that is what he is going to live off for the rest of his life.
Just what I recon.
ETA: I havn't read the entire thread sorry if someone else had already made this point
It wasn't real money and it wasn't real profit is the main problem.Why not take off a small chunk of his pension fund??
It is most certainly not fair for him to loose his pension as that is what he is going to live off for the rest of his life.
Just what I recon.
ETA: I havn't read the entire thread sorry if someone else had already made this point
Edited by The Moose on Saturday 28th February 11:01
andy-xr said:
Well done to the guy, he's negotiated a good deal presumably well before The Browturn kicked in. If the banking problems hadnt been brought to light, or if the banks hadnt had these problems I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid
I think those little points are why people think he doesn't deserve that pension.
el stovey said:
andy-xr said:
Well done to the guy, he's negotiated a good deal presumably well before The Browturn kicked in. If the banking problems hadnt been brought to light, or if the banks hadnt had these problems I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid
I think those little points are why people think he doesn't deserve that pension.
The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.
turbobloke said:
The point remains that the 'government' via ministers approved Fred's exit package and timing including pension arrangements, so wtf are they doing whining about it at this stage? Making such a fuss when it's their fault can only be a combination of incompetence, arrogance, hypocrisy and blame transfer. If some on here consider that Fred's waiving of rights to elements of hi contractual severance rights was insufficient penance then G Brown @ 10 Downing St is where the buck stops. Not least because what the bank execs (plural) did was within Gordon Clown's own regulatory framework. Double whammy for the Velcro Varmint - fortunately he's nowhere near as slippery as Teflon Tony was - but another question is how much of his pension will G Brown be waiving? Any bets for zero? Slugbrows has said that failure must not be rewarded, so he and his boss should be working for free by now, and in light of what's unfolding across the nation, paying the electorate for years to come.
Same way I read it. Government want Fred out, Fred says OK I'll forgo a years salary (his notice period) if my pension is amended to account for an extra 10 years retirement (circa 8mil). Pension pot doubled pretty much, ministers signed off on it. The point is that the government signed off on this crazy pension fund, fair play to Fred for negotiating it, [wishful thinking on] I just hope he has the sense to do some good with it all. [wishful thinking off/]
elster said:
For all those who suggest he should not receive it.
Do you agree anyone who has had a failed business not be allowed to receive a pension?
If they put their own contributions into a private pension fund - yes. If the pension is from funds paid in by the company that they drove to insolvency and now only exists because it has been rescued by new investors - no.Do you agree anyone who has had a failed business not be allowed to receive a pension?
Edited by audidoody on Saturday 28th February 13:03
mrmaggit said:
How many years inside did Nick Leeson get for wrecking Barings?
Shouldn't that have set a precedent?
Shouldn't that have set a precedent?
Mclovin said:
cant believe this dude isnt doing time...i'm sure nick leson done time and he didnt lose that much...
Nick Leeson wasn't jailed for wrecking Barings. He was jailed for committing criminal fraud by deceiving his superiors about his activities. The fact that Barings collapsed as a result was irrelevant.A crime is not committed in causing a company to fail in of itself. Poor management is not a crime. Otherwise should the owner/manager of every business that fails simply because of poor management be sent to jail? If you want to send Sir Fred to jail, you'll need to find evidence of fraud or any other criminal act.
A better bet would have been as follows for all banks
1. Let them go bankrupt with all the board members still in place at the time of bankrupcy
2. Government buy banks from bankrupcy and invest the millions they have already
3. All board members are banned from being on a board due to bankrupcy law for 5 years
This way the board members would have got nothing and would not have been allowed to do the same again (well at least for 5 years)
1. Let them go bankrupt with all the board members still in place at the time of bankrupcy
2. Government buy banks from bankrupcy and invest the millions they have already
3. All board members are banned from being on a board due to bankrupcy law for 5 years
This way the board members would have got nothing and would not have been allowed to do the same again (well at least for 5 years)
Topboy said:
A better bet would have been as follows for all banks
1. Let them go bankrupt with all the board members still in place at the time of bankrupcy
2. Government buy banks from bankrupcy and invest the millions they have already
3. All board members are banned from being on a board due to bankrupcy law for 5 years
This way the board members would have got nothing and would not have been allowed to do the same again (well at least for 5 years)
Nail...Head1. Let them go bankrupt with all the board members still in place at the time of bankrupcy
2. Government buy banks from bankrupcy and invest the millions they have already
3. All board members are banned from being on a board due to bankrupcy law for 5 years
This way the board members would have got nothing and would not have been allowed to do the same again (well at least for 5 years)
If only they had.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff