rbs boss to get 9.6 million pay..
Discussion
So is this:
a) a disgrace the public are funding this, why does he need to be paid more than heads of other banks, can 1 person really make that much difference, how can it be justified when so many staff are going to be laid off.
or
b) makes sense as pay is linked to share price so if he gets rbs to that share price the gov can sell our shares and make a profit so whats £10 million cw couple of billion profit
am undecided am veering to a unless he does a great job then its b such will be the benefit of hindsight!
a) a disgrace the public are funding this, why does he need to be paid more than heads of other banks, can 1 person really make that much difference, how can it be justified when so many staff are going to be laid off.
or
b) makes sense as pay is linked to share price so if he gets rbs to that share price the gov can sell our shares and make a profit so whats £10 million cw couple of billion profit
am undecided am veering to a unless he does a great job then its b such will be the benefit of hindsight!
As stated, the majority of that pay is linked in with how well RBS's shares do. So in that sense it's justified.
I'd hate to see that £3million odd in bonuses paid out if the share prices don't go back up though. A bonus is something you get for surpassing your targets....and not something you are entitled to. It's about time this was realised in the city!
I'd hate to see that £3million odd in bonuses paid out if the share prices don't go back up though. A bonus is something you get for surpassing your targets....and not something you are entitled to. It's about time this was realised in the city!
k did we need to bail out this piece of crap company so that useless wasteful rich idiots can live the high life...they should have just guaranteed the deposits under 50k and say goodbye... 
oyster said:
FourWheelDrift said:
No one wanted the job, they had to offer more money to get someone to accept the poisoned chalice that is RBS.
I doubt that the 30,000+ City workers who've lost their jobs recently would have turned this one down, even if the salary was a paltry £1m.oyster said:
FourWheelDrift said:
No one wanted the job, they had to offer more money to get someone to accept the poisoned chalice that is RBS.
I doubt that the 30,000+ City workers who've lost their jobs recently would have turned this one down, even if the salary was a paltry £1m.FourWheelDrift said:
oyster said:
FourWheelDrift said:
No one wanted the job, they had to offer more money to get someone to accept the poisoned chalice that is RBS.
I doubt that the 30,000+ City workers who've lost their jobs recently would have turned this one down, even if the salary was a paltry £1m.Jasandjules said:
Allow me to point out - Jonathan Ross. 18 million over three years. Straight from the taxpayer's pocket.
And the guy's not even funny.!!It makes you wonder if his job is really worth £1.5 million a year in salary. But if that's what people are willing to pay.
I'm just worried that nothing's changed, and this guy will get paid bonuses, even if he fails.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Jasandjules said:
Allow me to point out - Jonathan Ross. 18 million over three years. Straight from the taxpayer's pocket.
And the guy's not even funny.!!It makes you wonder if his job is really worth £1.5 million a year in salary. But if that's what people are willing to pay.
I'm just worried that nothing's changed, and this guy will get paid bonuses, even if he fails.
Fittster said:
You think one lesson people would have learnt is that paying bankers large salaries doesn't ensure good results. The 'You must pay for top talent' argument no longer stands up.
quite and if it did then we should pay more for mps surely - no wonder they claim expenses when they see effectively public funded people earning £1 million+ a year yet they are supposed to be in charge of the whole country and get nothing in comparison. nonegreen said:
Fittster said:
You think one lesson people would have learnt is that paying bankers large salaries doesn't ensure good results. The 'You must pay for top talent' argument no longer stands up.
Yep 3million for Prince Charles and we couldn't have got a bigger muppet could we?if this dude turns around RBS and get the share price up...then we are the winners arnt we?
UK govt has made a profit and plugged a small part of the big hole. isnt that the idea in theory? and if that is the case...why are we complaining about the dude making a bit of money for achieving the result we want from RBS?
UK govt has made a profit and plugged a small part of the big hole. isnt that the idea in theory? and if that is the case...why are we complaining about the dude making a bit of money for achieving the result we want from RBS?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff