Goodwin offers to reduce his pension

[unrepentant]

No it's not a joke. Fred the Shred obviously fears for his safety if he doesn't make a gesture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8106815.stm

[Jasandjules]

Is it going to stop his house being attacked? I doubt it. I mean, will he suffer on £400k or so a year? I doubt that too...

[unrepentant]

It's a start. The BBC think it may not be enough and the Gov't may try to get it reduced further in court.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

unrepentant said:

It's a start. The BBC think it may not be enough and the Gov't may try to get it reduced further in court.

So they should.


The guy failed on a spectacular level!!! Boardering on Criminal if you ask me (they must have known what they were doing was bound to collapse eventually, and yet they didn't try to protect the public's money).

[elster]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

unrepentant said:

It's a start. The BBC think it may not be enough and the Gov't may try to get it reduced further in court.

So they should.


The guy failed on a spectacular level!!! Boardering on Criminal if you ask me (they must have known what they were doing was bound to collapse eventually, and yet they didn't try to protect the public's money).

Why?

I think you mean the guys who signed off the pension should have it taken out of theirs.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

elster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

unrepentant said:

It's a start. The BBC think it may not be enough and the Gov't may try to get it reduced further in court.

So they should.


The guy failed on a spectacular level!!! Boardering on Criminal if you ask me (they must have known what they were doing was bound to collapse eventually, and yet they didn't try to protect the public's money).

Why?

I think you mean the guys who signed off the pension should have it taken out of theirs.

No.

Personally, I'd like to see some form of charges brought against these bankers, since they knew that what they were doing would result in a collapse eventually. But this won't happen.

The Governments role in this mess is a different issue. For the purposes of this thread being specifically about Goodwin, I'd like to see more action.


But you're right. The Government have to take a lot of the blame as well. Which is why I was soo shocked to hear there won't be banking reforms, which means that even if bank personnel change, the system is still in place for these guys to screw us all over again. Reforms are needed so that we don't find ourselves in such a position again.

IMO of course

[ClaphamGT3]

Why on earth should he give a single penny back???

RTFC :rollseyes:

[elster]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

elster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

unrepentant said:

It's a start. The BBC think it may not be enough and the Gov't may try to get it reduced further in court.

So they should.


The guy failed on a spectacular level!!! Boardering on Criminal if you ask me (they must have known what they were doing was bound to collapse eventually, and yet they didn't try to protect the public's money).

Why?

I think you mean the guys who signed off the pension should have it taken out of theirs.

No.

Personally, I'd like to see some form of charges brought against these bankers, since they knew that what they were doing would result in a collapse eventually. But this won't happen.

The Governments role in this mess is a different issue. For the purposes of this thread being specifically about Goodwin, I'd like to see more action.

But you're right. The Government have to take a lot of the blame as well. Which is why I was soo shocked to hear there won't be banking reforms, which means that even if bank personnel change, the system is still in place for these guys to screw us all over again. Reforms are needed so that we don't find ourselves in such a position again.

IMO of course

What kind of charges? Not managing to make a huge profit this year for the share holders? After all it is only another business.

If your business didn't do well one year and was partially bought out, would you expect to walk away with nothing? The pension you have paid into has to be given back? I think not. Stop being such an alarmist.

[Buffalo]

Wrong wrong wrong. It's his pension, he was granted it, no one should be able to take it away. The Government have no right to demand it back and should look to their own staff's dealings before suggesting otherwise. If i was him, i'd go live in the south of france for a while and let it blow over...

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Buffalo said:

Wrong wrong wrong. It's his pension, he was granted it, no one should be able to take it away. The Government have no right to demand it back and should look to their own staff's dealings before suggesting otherwise. If i was him, i'd go live in the south of france for a while and let it blow over...

Very true. And yes, legally he's entitled to it. Government signed off on it.

I'm talking specifically from a moral point of view, and based on what he did; he doesnt deserve it!

[Oakey]

elster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

elster said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

unrepentant said:

It's a start. The BBC think it may not be enough and the Gov't may try to get it reduced further in court.

So they should.


The guy failed on a spectacular level!!! Boardering on Criminal if you ask me (they must have known what they were doing was bound to collapse eventually, and yet they didn't try to protect the public's money).

Why?

I think you mean the guys who signed off the pension should have it taken out of theirs.

No.

Personally, I'd like to see some form of charges brought against these bankers, since they knew that what they were doing would result in a collapse eventually. But this won't happen.

The Governments role in this mess is a different issue. For the purposes of this thread being specifically about Goodwin, I'd like to see more action.

But you're right. The Government have to take a lot of the blame as well. Which is why I was soo shocked to hear there won't be banking reforms, which means that even if bank personnel change, the system is still in place for these guys to screw us all over again. Reforms are needed so that we don't find ourselves in such a position again.

IMO of course

What kind of charges? Not managing to make a huge profit this year for the share holders? After all it is only another business.

If your business didn't do well one year and was partially bought out, would you expect to walk away with nothing? The pension you have paid into has to be given back? I think not. Stop being such an alarmist.

You'd think they'd heed their own advice they plaster on their advertisements; Warning: investments can go down as well as up

[Oakey]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Buffalo said:

Wrong wrong wrong. It's his pension, he was granted it, no one should be able to take it away. The Government have no right to demand it back and should look to their own staff's dealings before suggesting otherwise. If i was him, i'd go live in the south of france for a while and let it blow over...

Very true. And yes, legally he's entitled to it. Government signed off on it.

I'm talking specifically from a moral point of view, and based on what he did; he doesnt deserve it!

But the fking Government has absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell him or the public that it's 'morally wrong' when the fkers are claiming for everything from IKEA carrier bags to Moat dredging.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

elster said:

What kind of charges? Not managing to make a huge profit this year for the share holders? After all it is only another business.

If your business didn't do well one year and was partially bought out, would you expect to walk away with nothing? The pension you have paid into has to be given back? I think not. Stop being such an alarmist.

Ok,

so the public invest 'THEIR' money with RBS. RBS use this money to speculate and try and make more money. Through their poor dealings, and gung-ho attitude towards lending and making a profit, they almost lost all of the public's money.


Let's say the Gov didn't bail RBS out. What's happened to the public's money in their accounts?........What, there wouldn't be any....gone you say!!! Goodwin and the other bankers KNEW a collapse was coming, yet they did nothing to try safeguard the publi'c money, which they had used to speculate on properties, markets, and lending.

They knew what was happening, but all they cared about was getting out before the crap hit 'their' fan.

I'm not trying to be alarmist. I'd just like to see these guys get what they deserve. The members of the public who banked with RBS would have 'NOTHING' if there wasnt a bail-out. Zip. Do you think they would have taken your view if that was the case?

Just because RBS was bailed out, doesnt mean they weren't any less wrong and immoral with their actions.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 18th June 12:30

[ClaphamGT3]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Buffalo said:

Wrong wrong wrong. It's his pension, he was granted it, no one should be able to take it away. The Government have no right to demand it back and should look to their own staff's dealings before suggesting otherwise. If i was him, i'd go live in the south of france for a while and let it blow over...

Very true. And yes, legally he's entitled to it. Government signed off on it.

I'm talking specifically from a moral point of view, and based on what he did; he doesnt deserve it!

He spent a number of years as a highly effective CEO of a banking group, delivering returns to his shareholders in line with or in excess of the the bank's business plan & committments to shareholders. A number of business decisions, again endorsed by the bank's board & shareholders, proved not to be sustainable in the light of the current economic crisis. Instead of allowing the bank to either be sold or to fail, the Govt chose to take a majority position in the bank's stock. Fred Goodwin resigned as part of this deal and, in recognition of the failure, waived his contracted bonus position (worth several million pounds) for the last year.

How can you possibly say that he doesn't deserve his pension?!

[elster]

haworthlloyd1 said:

if he wasn't bailed out and rbs went bust then his pension would have gone bust along with rbs up to the ppf level.

he should give more back than £200k he is only doing it to try to stop legal action - i say take the legal action to the crook.

also, please don't anybody refer to him as 'sir fred' please just refer to him as 'the crook'

Why has he been singled out as the one person that has destroyed the banking system?!

Does everyone really believe the media scape goat is the sole reason?

If you do then I thought memebers of this forum were a little better educated.

If they bring on legal action he will keep it all and the government will have to pay the costs as well.

If they had left it to go bust then he would of lost his company pension from RBS, but they didn't. So that is irrelevant. They had the equivalent of a buy out. In which case he would of been paid out the same anyway.

[Oakey]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Buffalo said:

Wrong wrong wrong. It's his pension, he was granted it, no one should be able to take it away. The Government have no right to demand it back and should look to their own staff's dealings before suggesting otherwise. If i was him, i'd go live in the south of france for a while and let it blow over...

Very true. And yes, legally he's entitled to it. Government signed off on it.

I'm talking specifically from a moral point of view, and based on what he did; he doesnt deserve it!

He spent a number of years as a highly effective CEO of a banking group, delivering returns to his shareholders in line with or in excess of the the bank's business plan & committments to shareholders. A number of business decisions, again endorsed by the bank's board & shareholders, proved not to be sustainable in the light of the current economic crisis. Instead of allowing the bank to either be sold or to fail, the Govt chose to take a majority position in the bank's stock. Fred Goodwin resigned as part of this deal and, in recognition of the failure, waived his contracted bonus position (worth several million pounds) for the last year.

How can you possibly say that he doesn't deserve his pension?!

From the little man at the bottom to the fat cats at the top, you never get praise or recognition for the great things you do, people only concentrate on the bad.

[elster]

haworthlloyd1 said:

if he wasn't bailed our with my/our taxpayers money the thing would have gone bust. people would have lost savings, the country would be in meltdown and he sure as hell wouldn't have got his pension

why should the taxpayer subsidise his pension for allowing a failure of a big bank?

Why would the country be in melt down?

The company would be asset stripped, others would take on the debts. People would lose investments.

The world would still be spinning in the morning. It wouldn't of changed things that drastically.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Oakey said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Buffalo said:

Wrong wrong wrong. It's his pension, he was granted it, no one should be able to take it away. The Government have no right to demand it back and should look to their own staff's dealings before suggesting otherwise. If i was him, i'd go live in the south of france for a while and let it blow over...

Very true. And yes, legally he's entitled to it. Government signed off on it.

I'm talking specifically from a moral point of view, and based on what he did; he doesnt deserve it!

He spent a number of years as a highly effective CEO of a banking group, delivering returns to his shareholders in line with or in excess of the the bank's business plan & committments to shareholders. A number of business decisions, again endorsed by the bank's board & shareholders, proved not to be sustainable in the light of the current economic crisis. Instead of allowing the bank to either be sold or to fail, the Govt chose to take a majority position in the bank's stock. Fred Goodwin resigned as part of this deal and, in recognition of the failure, waived his contracted bonus position (worth several million pounds) for the last year.

How can you possibly say that he doesn't deserve his pension?!

From the little man at the bottom to the fat cats at the top, you never get praise or recognition for the great things you do, people only concentrate on the bad.

Oh, I'm not saying he doesn't deserve his pension. Of course he does. I just think that @ £350k a year, after all the money people have lost due to this mess, it's excessive.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 18th June 12:34

[Spiritual_Beggar]

elster said:

haworthlloyd1 said:

if he wasn't bailed our with my/our taxpayers money the thing would have gone bust. people would have lost savings, the country would be in meltdown and he sure as hell wouldn't have got his pension

why should the taxpayer subsidise his pension for allowing a failure of a big bank?

Why would the country be in melt down?

The company would be asset stripped, others would take on the debts. People would lose investments.

The world would still be spinning in the morning. It wouldn't of changed things that drastically.

RBS is one of the 5 biggest banks in the world apparently (3 0f those 5 have HQ's in London). It would have left a big hole that's for sure.

You say others will pick up the debts.....such as? Because they were all in the same situation.


I'm not picking on Goodwin. This thread is about him, hence the focus. I think all the heads of the banks are the same. They all knew what they were doing, and where it would lend. When the media start talking about the other heads then the focus will turn to them oo, but at the moment Goodwin is all they talk about.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Thursday 18th June 12:42

[Soir]

the story says he managed to double his pension pot when negotiating with RBS about leaving his post early. And he has now offered half of that increase back??

Did he really manage to double his pension to over £16m for leaving? why didn't he leave with the pension he had up to that point, a meesily £8m? who the hell allowed him to take more money for leaving???

cunning but clever, utter criminal