• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ofiicial RBS Bonus Thread

Gordinho

Gordinho

Banned
Am I the only person who thinks yer man's bonus is a good thing?

I want the best man (assuming Stephen Hester is the best man) for the job running the bank for the good of the country. I want it run for the good of the nation and tax payers along private sector disciplines. If the best man for the job costs that much and the country benefits overall from paying the right wages to the right man then pay him.

I don't expect workers in the public sector to work for philanthropic reasons so I don't expect bosses to. I don't expect public sector workers to give up their legitimately negotiated bonuses which form part of their T&Cs so I don't expect bosses to.

Isn't this just a template for how all the (including former) public services should be run?

I sense envy from those complaining.
 
What I'm not understanding fully is that if I look at RBS's share price tracker over the last 12 months I see a fall from 43p per share in Jan 2011 to 28p a share in Jan 2012.

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?client=ob&q=LON:RBS#

I get that RBS has performed well from a profit perspective, but (short term) it's worth less than it was 12 months ago.

Still, I'm broadly in agreement that if RBS is considered to be doing well then it's in our best interests to far more than the tune of ?ú1m and he should get what he's owed.
 
LLB Part Trois said:
What I'm not understanding fully is that if I look at RBS's share price tracker over the last 12 months I see a fall from 43p per share in Jan 2011 to 28p a share in Jan 2012.

http://www.google.co.uk/finance?client=ob&q=LON:RBS#

I get that RBS has performed well from a profit perspective, but (short term) it's worth less than it was 12 months ago.

Still, I'm broadly in agreement that if RBS is considered to be doing well then it's in our best interests to far more than the tune of ?ú1m and he should get what he's owed.
Click to expand...

What you must consider is that the eurozone is in utter turmoil, this has affected the share price with all of the uncertainty over how it will ultimately be resolved.

There are solid practices being adopted IMO by RBS which is what we want to see. Of course there will always be uproar over a ?ú1m bonus to a banker, its an easy target at the moment to bash the bankers.
 
His bonus was targetted on reducing the risk levels inherent in RBS. He's done more than well enough to have earned that bonus.

We're essentially paying ?ú100m to someone for reducing the loss risk by billions, not a bad deal if you take out all the politics.
 
But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?.....

Reading some of the comments from union leaders I conclude either that they are thick as pigbrick (possible), or they know a good socio-political opportunity when they see it (likely).

Besides which, it isn't ?ú1m cash bonus. It's a share award that vests in three years. Chances are it'll be worth considerably more then. Details that escape the headlines.

Not saying I like it, or dislike it.

But..... why let the truth get in the way of a good story?.....
 
funster said:
But why let the truth get in the way of a good story?.....

Reading some of the comments from union leaders I conclude either that they are thick as pigbrick (possible), or they know a good socio-political opportunity when they see it (likely).

Besides which, it isn't ?ú1m cash bonus. It's a share award that vests in three years. Chances are it'll be worth considerably more then. Details that escape the headlines.

Not saying I like it, or dislike it.

But..... why let the truth get in the way of a good story?.....
Click to expand...

Opportunists.
 
I agree Gord, the contract was agreed years ago by Labour.....and given the tax payer is in the hole for around ?ú60 billion with RBS we need someone with ability and knowledge to sort it out!!

Given he was appointed AFTER the brick hit the fan it would be immoral to go back on a legal agreement signed in good faith!

We need the best man for the job, and if he earns ?ú10 million for saving us ?ú60 billion as the share price recovers then so be it.

The anti-wealth rhetotic in this country is VERY worrying. The base class warefare and politics of envy is ding my head in. If the rich are poorer we are all poorer, why can't thick left wing clams get that into their heads???
 
Leeds Spur said:
I agree Gord, the contract was agreed years ago by Labour.....and given the tax payer is in the hole for around ?ú60 billion with RBS we need someone with ability and knowledge to sort it out!!

Given he was appointed AFTER the brick hit the fan it would be immoral to go back on a legal agreement signed in good faith!

We need the best man for the job, and if he earns ?ú10 million for saving us ?ú60 billion as the share price recovers then so be it.

The anti-wealth rhetotic in this country is VERY worrying. The base class warefare and politics of envy is ding my head in. If the rich are poorer we are all poorer, why can't thick left wing clams get that into their heads???
Click to expand...

Agreed with everything until the last sentence.

I see it every day here on on this board, I see it every day going about my daily business. People envious of those with something they haven't got. Ignorance and envy's got nothing to do with left wing allegiance or I wouldn't be ignoring 99% of threads about politics on this board which I think you'd agree is right of centre.
 
If an entire country is slightly to the right of centre, haven't we just marked 'centre' in the wrong place?
 
re; the RBS bonus
personally i say pay it all in shares (linked to results per annum) and dividends (or at least the majority of) only paid once he has moved the company out of state ownership

seems like he is doing a good job though, and (unless im mistaken) it isnt his fault RBS collapsed in the first place

re; the envy growing in this country, i totally agree it is ridiculous (born from a culture of being able to have have have without actually having the ?ú since the banks liberalisation in the 80s).
there is a slight air of realism in it where people see top execs getting pay that is disproportionate to their own - but the current "you earn a decent ammount, therefore you are a money grabber" mentality is very worrying. (but said, its an attitdue that has only grown due to the action of the elite few that have shown contempt for the "front line" workers)
 
Leeds Spur said:
I agree Gord, the contract was agreed years ago by Labour.....and given the tax payer is in the hole for around ?ú60 billion with RBS we need someone with ability and knowledge to sort it out!!

Given he was appointed AFTER the brick hit the fan it would be immoral to go back on a legal agreement signed in good faith!

We need the best man for the job, and if he earns ?ú10 million for saving us ?ú60 billion as the share price recovers then so be it.

The anti-wealth rhetotic in this country is VERY worrying. The base class warefare and politics of envy is ding my head in. If the rich are poorer we are all poorer, why can't thick left wing clams get that into their heads???
Click to expand...

Like Gord, I agree with everything till the last sentence. The reason they can't get it into their heads is because its a load of bull. People hating others because they're rich is mind-numbingly stupid and I have no problems with wealth-making. I would be a hypocrite if I was, my wife and I are hardly on the bread line!

But no, if the rich are poorer, we are not all poorer, just like when the rich are richer, the money doesn't trickle down to improve the lives of the poor.

Maybe taking the bonus isn't the best thing to do morally and this is hardly the most controversial view, Sir Phillip Hampton has rejected his own bonus for reasons along those lines. But he's under no obligation to do so and if it is in his contract, then he is entitled to pick up his bonus. No qualms or arguments there. This is not a political decision, for Cameron to come in and veto the bonus, its frankly none of his business.
 
I hate the benefits class and thats not envy that is just pure hatred of lazy fudgers who get something for nothing and put the whole country at risk.

The guy earnt his bonus let him have it, the people on all these benefiits have not earnt it and are undeserving poor and for that i hate them, i will show some restraint and not get myself into trouble by saying what i would really like to do to them. But they are a bigger problem to this country then a few fellas in the city getting some bonuses, i do not care what they do in the city leave them to it.

Just someone let me at the people who think they deserve all these benefits despite not working or wanting to work and for having 10 children by 11 different men, it would be a fudging blood bath:mrgreen:
 
chichester said:
I hate the benefits class and thats not envy that is just pure hatred of lazy fudgers who get something for nothing and put the whole country at risk.

The guy earnt his bonus let him have it, the people on all these benefiits have not earnt it and are undeserving poor and for that i hate them, i will show some restraint and not get myself into trouble by saying what i would really like to do to them. But they are a bigger problem to this country then a few fellas in the city getting some bonuses, i do not care what they do in the city leave them to it.

Just someone let me at the people who think they deserve all these benefits despite not working or wanting to work and for having 10 children by 11 different men, it would be a fudging blood bath:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

No disrespect mate but you're knocking on a bit now, best leave the dishing out of right handers to those younger and more able. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back