JustGav Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Wow, personally, i don't want the guy taking a pension pot of £16m home while the country suffers because of his lavish lending methods. But i guess a proportion of his pension comes from the idiots on here that think it's acceptable so if you want to pay him for his mistakes then that's your choice. There is only one executive of the banks that deserves his lavish pension and that's because he runs the only bank that didn't lend irresponsibly.... the other bank leaders thought he was an idiot Wow, interesting point of view if not media-blinded... Matt, you have a contract for your mortgage, it says you will pay 4% interest and you will pay it back over 25 years... What you are in fact saying is that because of the figure he is getting that would have been negotiated years before all of this is a bit of a sour taste, that his contract should be null and void because public opinion says so... What are you going to do when someone knocks on your door and says 'Move out...., public opinion says you have a 3 bedroom house for one person and it isn't fair' This is an example and I have no idea what your mortgage rate is or if you even have a 3 bedroom house What people are missing is that pensions like this aren't exactly uncommon when dealing with HUGE businesses, same as golden handshakes. I have worked at companies where the CTO worked 6 months, and then got 6 months gardening leave at full pay (around £250k/year)... If the companies are silly enough to take these sort of people on then they have to take the heat from decisions as well. I'm sure Goodwin had a hell of a good reputation and business acumen when he was hired in the first place. interesting set of awards for someone who 'single-handed' ruined the british banking system (apparently) * December 2002 - Forbes (global edition) "Businessman of the Year", which described him as an original thinker with a fast-forward frame of mind who had transformed RBS from a nonentity into a global name. * 2003 - 2006 - No.1 in Scotland on Sunday's Power 100[23][21][24] * December 2003 - "European Banker of the Year" in 2003 * June 2004 - Knighted in the Queen's 2004 Birthday Honours list, for his services to banking.[25] * July 2008 - awarded an honorary fellowship by the London Business School[26] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 oh dear. Why do you think this is now the governments business?!!? BECAUSE THE PUBLIC NOW OWN PART OF THE BUSINESS AND BILLIONS OF OUR MONEY IS FUNDING ITS SURVIVAL. I think his contract went out of the window when the government had to bail him / his company out with billions of pounds of public money. Do you think he would have a cent of a pension if the bank went belly up? no. All bets were off when "we" had to step in. And Gav, you can't relate this to me you or any other joe public. The guy was a figure head of the country... Do you think you could upset the economical balance of the country? no, so i think your pension is safe... unless the government has to bail you out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The other portion will come from the idiots who can't see the bigger picture. One and the same person!! Bigger picture is your not in a position to sink the economy and to be in the position of being bailed out by public money. The reason why this is in the air is as above. Take a look at the bigger picture. His company is no longer private, so it's our business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 oh dear. Why do you think this is now the governments business?!!? BECAUSE THE PUBLIC NOW OWN PART OF THE BUSINESS AND BILLIONS OF OUR MONEY IS FUNDING ITS SURVIVAL. I think his contract went out of the window when the government had to bail him / his company out with billions of pounds of public money. Do you think he would have a cent of a pension if the bank went belly up? no. All bets were off when "we" had to step in. And Gav, you can't relate this to me you or any other joe public. The guy was a figure head of the country... Do you think you could upset the economical balance of the country? no, so i think your pension is safe... unless the government has to bail you out. You do know while Brown was still Chancellor that one of his advisers sat on the board of RBS while Goodwin's remuneration was discussed and OK'd? The financial media reported Goodwins pension would be £700kpa last October, but the Government has waited 6 months before making a big deal about this- why - spin, to cover up that Brown's time at the treasury has come back to bite the UK very hard on the arse with £1.5tr of liabilities (and this is growing with some insane Gov backed CDS for toxics). Also, Goodwin's pension has come from 25-30 years of working, not just the few years at RBS. Did you really think he started a pension plan at 45? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 One and the same person!! Bigger picture is your not in a position to sink the economy and to be in the position of being bailed out by public money. The reason why this is in the air is as above. Take a look at the bigger picture. His company is no longer private, so it's our business Don't get me wrong, I don't believe he is innocent in all the dealings, but as has been said, that is his pension which he would have built up over the years. Perhaps as a goodwill gesture maybe reduce it, but if it was me, would I so 'no thank you' to a 650k pension that I had earned over the years? If he was truly that incompetent would he have survived possibly not. He was hired as being a forward thinking aggressive business man. I don't see all the failed businesses being asked to hand back their pensions. Like here, the scape goat has been chosen and now the pack are hunting... The financial media reported Goodwins pension would be £700kpa last October, but the Government has waited 6 months before making a big deal about this- why - spin, to cover up that Brown's time at the treasury has come back to bite the UK very hard on the arse with £1.5tr of liabilities That says it, and yes I agree, total spin. I'm not impressed with the fact that there is big money being bounced around when there is a huge crisis looming, but under the law of this land he has earned it and got it in writing. Contracts are heading towards being legally binding until a mass of people suddenly decide it isn't, in which yes law should be re-written BUT then it should affect the public not a targeted individual otherwise where do they stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Also, Goodwin's pension has come from 25-30 years of working, not just the few years at RBS. Did you really think he started a pension plan at 45? Don't get me wrong, I don't believe he is innocent in all the dealings, but as has been said, that is his pension which he would have built up over the years. Perhaps as a goodwill gesture maybe reduce it, but if it was me, would I so 'no thank you' to a 650k pension that I had earned over the years? If he was truly that incompetent would he have survived possibly not. He was hired as being a forward thinking aggressive business man. I don't see all the failed businesses being asked to hand back their pensions. Like here, the scape goat has been chosen and now the pack are hunting... Gaz, Gav Yes i understand that his pension has grown since he started work. I don't know where all his money is stored and in what pots and from what companies.. I should have made it clear that i don't think he entire pension should be culled, especially prior to RBS. But i certainly think his pension from his time as CEO of RBS should be seriously cut to basic. Prior to RBS, whatever, that's not our business, but while he has been in charge of RBS then he should'nt be able to profit from that at all. Sorry, thought that would have been obvious Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 The guy was a figure head of the country... Do you think you could upset the economical balance of the country? no, so i think your pension is safe... unless the government has to bail you out. UK law doesn't have a clause to say "if you're the head of a large company, the following protection laws don't apply to you:.......". Therefore, it's the job of whoever writes the employment contract to ensure that it operates how they want it to, including clauses that take away benefits when certain things happen. The owner of a company (whether it's shareholders, the govt or privately owned) do not have carte blanche to do whatever they like to pension funds. They do have options open to them, but they can't do everything they'd like to. AFAIK when someone starts drawing a pension (not sure if Fred has), the options open to the owner of the business are very limited indeed. Otherwise, the UK govt would need to "do a Maxwell" and use Fred's pension fund for other purposes: that would surely be illegal, even if they want to spend it saving lives of young children or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazboy Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 Prior to RBS, whatever, that's not our business, but while he has been in charge of RBS then he should'nt be able to profit from that at all. Sorry, thought that would have been obvious Then the Gov shouldn't have ok'd the blokes pension. The chap is legally entitled to that deal, signed by all parties. His pot was £8bn prior to RBS, assuming he'd retire at 60. He was pushed out and forced to retire at 50 so his pension had to have another ten years of funding to meet the agreement that was signed off. Also remember that Goodwin forfeited some of his salary and bonuses as a goodwill gesture and asked Brown if that would be all and Brown said yes that's ok. Now six months later this arrangement doesn't suit Brown because the UK is on the verge of having it's credit downgraded from AAA and our national debt & liabilities is 150% of GDP AND a FSA whistle blower is not only going to kick a few bollocks next week he's going to face fuck a lot of people including Gordon Brown. I'll be amazed if Gordon doesn't resign after Moore has finished his closing sentences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 I wonder what the 'Court of Public Opinion' would say about her claiming that her family house in Gloucs. is actually her 2nd home so that she can claim £116K/year for it whilst claiming her main place of residence is at her sisters house in London? I reckon she's worse that Mr Goodwin! (Just my opinion, of course) The Daily Mash has a nice take on her comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLicense Posted March 2, 2009 Share Posted March 2, 2009 One and the same person!! Bigger picture is your not in a position to sink the economy and to be in the position of being bailed out by public money. The reason why this is in the air is as above. Take a look at the bigger picture. His company is no longer private, so it's our business Oh I see, so you're saying that the government should indeed have cart blanche to break the laws that they themselves set down as it suits them. Ah OK, hadn't seen it from that viewpoint. It doesn't matter who he is or what he's done, he has a legally binding contract, that *our* representatives signed. Who should be held accountable for that? The person who signed the legally binding contract I would say. Now the question of whether or not he deserves that pension is a completely different matter, but either way he's legally entitled to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 I wonder what the 'Court of Public Opinion' would say about her claiming that her family house in Gloucs. is actually her 2nd home so that she can claim £116K/year for it whilst claiming her main place of residence is at her sisters house in London? I reckon she's worse that Mr Goodwin! (Just my opinion, of course) A case of Do as I say not as I do...... What else would you expect from a "NEW" labour govt..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 2, 2009 Author Share Posted March 2, 2009 ..The government, and by government I mean Harriet Harman on Sunday a.m. tv, now saying it's morally wrong and wrong in the eyes of the public and that's where the government steps in, is just plain stupid. If she's saying that legally binding contracts can be looked at by the government and potentially changed if they don't like them a very dangerous precedent will be set. I wonder if she took careful legal advice before making that statement? Can open - worms everywhere!!! Isn't that just democracy in action Think my Galloway quote in my signature holds true by the second with this govt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hxs12/Panorama_What_Happens_After_Sorry/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra_aero Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7962825.stm Mr Goodwin's home vandalised I kinda feel bad for him - he is being used as a scapegoat. He is by far not alone in having caused this mess yet he is being unfairly singled out and targeted. It is easy to point the finger and say he gets paid x amount a year thus should give it up. But what people fail to mention like Gazboy says is his career was not the last 2 years of RBS but most likely 30+ years of hard work. And believe me getting to that level is not a case of drinking coffee, being driven around in exec cars all day. For at least 15-20 years he'd most likely have been doing 14-17 hours days up to 7 days a week with very little holiday. The media really annoys me when they stereotype bankers into being over paid and lazy. Whilst some unquestionably are, many more are not. It is an extremely competitive industry and not easy to stay in or get into. I can think of plenty more industries where people are more overpaid and genuinely do next to nothing with very little educational background or knowledge, yet vandals decide to target his home. In fairness maybe he should pay a little back at least but I can kinda see why he is resilient to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No need for that, just going to cost the taxpayer even more now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 No need for that, just going to cost the taxpayer even more now Why? Surely it's his own insurance that will pay out for such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt H Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Why? Surely it's his own insurance that will pay out for such things. Read the article. Extra Police car stationed at his gate, and RBS are paying x amount per month for additional survilence (RBS as in us), etc etc etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie_b Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The media really annoys me when they stereotype bankers into being over paid and lazy. Whilst some unquestionably are, many more are not. I'm not a banker, but I agree with you there. I think government (especially local govt) is a real gravy train. The difference is, those involved can work 7 hours a day, and just keep their heads down whilst doing not-quite-sure-what until they retire with a super-generous pension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DODGYDODDS Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Havent read all posts, but imo, he is allowed to keep his pension, as he did what he was supposed to do, the government now owns/ has nationalised over 70-80% of lloyds hbos group, that IS A KIN TO A MARXIST/SOCIALIST govt bank grab, and it was all done under the pretext of saving the organisation, without any opposition to the move. and might i add un[precidented. all part of a larger agenda. He is a prominent member of COMMON PURPOSE and also a high degree mason. One thing that it is not widely known is he for the first time last yr attended the BILLDEBERG MEETING. was it to get instructions who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.