|
So he was allowed to keep the company car too?
|
|
|
>>If they catch the guy (vandal, nor Fred), I think they would have a hard time getting a jury to convict !
Cos vandalism is right is it? I just hope - if you really think like that - you get your car vandalised too.
Fred Goodwin was: (1) doing what his shareholders wanted; (2) doing what institutional shareholders wanted.
Eric Daniels did neither.
LTSB's share price spent most of the last decade declining; RBS's didn't. Goodwin was not breaking the law; he was not able to act without the approval of his shareholders.
He merely did what they wanted him to do; and now he is lambasted.
Mods, please lock this thread.
|
Mm, can't help agreeing with everything you say, except the last thing.
What is it that makes people want to suppress discussion of certain things?
|
.. suppress discussion of certain things? >>
suppress discussion of certain things, on a motoring forum, such as the rights and wrongs of vandalising cars/property?
Edited by jbif on 25/03/2009 at 13:06
|
|
|
>>What is it that makes people want to suppress discussion of certain things?
Only that I am very annoyed by the suggestion that vandalism can ever be right - particularly when it is directed at some poor bloke who has only been doing his job to the best of his abilities, and yet is being held up as evil incarnate by both HM Government and HM Loyal Opposition.
As I said to George Osborne the other day.
|
Yeah, vandalism is despicable as most of us know. But why don't you want the thugs and loonies who think otherwise to expose themselves?
If it is impossible to discuss certain things because of the inflamed sensibilities of a few individuals, we might be misled into thinking that people are all right when really they aren't.
Let it all hang out.
|
>>Let it all hang out.
Including those defending this character. Oh, it's speaking volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
We will have to agree to dis-agree. He was ultimately responsible, for the fiasco.thats why he was paid so much. He seems to have walked away with vast amounts of money.If he was honourable he would have declined it. re- vandalism. A waste of time in this instance but sometimes it gets a message across.
|
Mapmaker
You need to read a little harder before jumping to rash statements
I didn't say I approved of the vandalism, but I don't think you would find 12/12, or even 10/12 jury would be possible considering the current feeling towards this guy.
MVP
|
|
|
|
Only that I am very annoyed by the suggestion that vandalism can ever be right - particularly when it is directed at some poor bloke who has only been doing his job to the best of his abilities and yet is being held up as evil incarnate by both HM Government and HM Loyal Opposition.
What a whinger. He is not a "poor" bloke. A lot of people are angry because he did not do the right thing by giving up his bonus. If you can read, its been reported many times over that he was in charge when rbs were raking up the biggest losses in UK corporate history. These losses directly affected people's jobs, pensions etc, not to mention the entire financial system. And why are you trying to get the thread closed? Grow up.
Edited by Focus1.8TDCi on 25/03/2009 at 13:42
|
.. he did not do the right thing by giving up his bonus .. >>
Was that approved and given to Fred by the Board of RBS [majority Govt. owned then] and by Lord Myners and others in the Treasury? Fred was given the dosh, thank you very much. The company car was thrown in as icing on the cake to help Fred decide to resign rather be sacked [ if Fred's work was so bad, he would have been sacked, right? ].
... he was in charge when rbs were raking up the biggest losses in UK corporate history ... >>
Was Fred's work was not considered so good by the "end of Boom and Bust" Gordy, that Gordy gave Fred a knighthood for "services to Banking"?
Does any of Fred's failings make it right to vandalise his property?
Does Focus1.8TDCi believe in Sharia Law?
Is Focus1.8TDCi going to join the anarchist protestors at the G20 event?
What has all this got to do with motoring?
Edited by jbif on 25/03/2009 at 13:57
|
|
|
Mapmaker said >> Fred Goodwin was: (1) doing what his shareholders wanted; (2) doing what institutional shareholders wanted. >>
I don't know how you know that. With allegations now being made that non-execs were leant on and that one thing was said while another was being done about sub-prime, I'd say the matter was far from clear.
When the chips were down, the only person Fred seems to have looked after is Fred. Shareholders? Not bothered about them, it would seem.
I don't approve of the vandalism and it should be investigated by the police. As should the circumstances of banks failing in the UK.
|
I'd say, Optimist, that the odd bit of sub-prime debt was small in comparison to the amount of overpaying for ABN Amro.
At the time of the Barclays v RBS struggle, the feeling was sidespread that the "winner" would be the bank that didn't acquire ABN Amro. YET, shareholders voted for Sir Shred's plans.
Non-exec directors, etc. shouldn't have allowed themselves to be bullied; why do they think they were being paid?
Goodwin did his job; his shareholders voted in his favour; he has claimed his contractual entitlement - which is a drop in the ocean compared to the losses racked up whilst he was in charge.
It is outrageous of the Government to try to put blame onto him, merely to divert the blame from Mr. Brown & co. It is equally outrageous of the Opposition to do exactly the same.
|
I say good luck to the fella and a shame a nice car got attacked.
Its funny how people only show an interest in someones justification for getting paid when they are wealthy. Atleast he turned up for work, thats more than thousands of other people our government 'pays' each month for watching ( or appearing on ) Jeremy Kyle.
Jelousy is such an ugly thing when theres money involved :-)
|
|
Wonder if he has advised his insurance company of change of occupation to make sure they don't have a get-out clause for paying??
|
It is outrageous of the Government to try to put blame onto him merely to divert the blame from Mr. Brown & co. It is equally outrageous of the Opposition to do exactly the same.
Speaking as someone who spent 20 years in Banking and Financial Services (and not in any of the ones that went under), my view on the problems areas are as follows:-
1 It is clear that the shareholders did not really having their views represented in a cohesive way. The institutional investors dominate but even then, when did the shareholders not renominate the Board of Directors?
2 I personally feel that much of the blame going to the Government is not fair. We apparently will soon have a regulation that forbids lending in excess of 100% of asset (ie home) value. Should someone in charge of Risk at the banks not thought of that.
3 Why did the banks lend at 5, 6 or 7 times people's salary. Again why did someone in charge at Risk at the banks not realise that it was not affordable. When I bought my first flat in 1990, I was only allowed to borrow a max of 3.5 salary. There will apparently soon be a regulation on this as well.
4 Why have credit card companys continually granted more and more credit, when people will never be able to pay it. Again this will soon be governed by regulation.
5 Why are people in charge of banks, people with non banking backgrounds. It is a complex business and needs expertise.
6 Remember not all British Banks went under - HSBC, Standard Chartered, Barclays, etc,etc. It was not endemic
I personally think there is a nanny state mentality going on. The bankers greed and recklessness was very much the cause of what happened. The shareholders should have been the ones controlling the Board of Directors (although they have not). We live in free society. Government should not be in charge of Company's business plans, although it appears now that it is.
The next time you think it is the Governments fault, take your watch or another valuable to a pawnbroker. Say your watch is worth £250, he will offer you maybe £80 and he will take full security over the watch. He will then charge you a fairly premium interest rate. He understands Risk Management and Profit. The bankers lost sight of it.
|
This thread is not motoring related apart from it being a car that was vandalised. Therefore it is now locked.
Thanks, Rob (Moderator)
|
|
|
|
|
|
