" ... it emerged that Sir Fred is drawing a pension of £650,000 a year. Although he is only 50, he is entitled to the payment for life, with a pension pot worth £16m. "
No wonder the banks are obfuscating for all they are worth in paying back bank charges which just today, coincidentally, the Court of Appeal has confirmed should be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading for unfairness.
These charge reclaims have been frozen since 27 July 2007 and the waiver will be lifted in July 2009 soonest.
Yet a parasite who has proved himself totally incompetent to the extent that the Government has had to take on 70% of the business he was running is paid a pension of that magnitude when still capable of work! Furthermore employees lower down the foodchain will undoubtedly be made redundant to pay for this jackass and others like him.
he worry is that the OFT will be influenced in coming to a decision regarding charges by the current state of the Banking Industry. Rather like the way that the question of "Monopoly", following the amalgamation of the various instituitions, has been swept under the carpet - for the greater good of the fat cats in the Banks.
He's not the problem, it's the people who gave him his contract who are at fault. If someone offered me that contract, I don't think I could turn it down.
The Government should have waited for Sir Fred's response and resolved this issue one way or another, before openly revealing it - in order to use public strength of feeling for their own political purposes.
The first question, therefore .......regardless of whether Sir Fred 'deserves' his huge pension or not, has the rights of this man been abused publicly ?
How would you people feel if your personal and private matters had been revealed in this way?
Don't confuse the question with the your own feelings about the size of his pension or 'fat cats' in general.
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]The Government should have waited for Sir Fred's response and resolved this issue one way or another, before openly revealing it -in order to use public strength of feeling for their own political purposes.
The first question, therefore .......regardless of whether Sir Fred 'deserves' his huge pension or not, has the rights of this man been abused publicly ?
How would you people feel if your personal and private matters had been revealed in this way?
Don't confuse the question with the your own feelings about the size of his pension or 'fat cats' in general.
Good point Oggy.
As can be seen above I jumped in with both feet without thinking of all the implications.
On the other hand, given that RBS is being funded by taxpayers (ie you and me), is there not a right for the public to know how their money is being spent?
i have not 1% of sadness for this twat. He has been paid a huge mega amount for being one of the guys who has f**ked the world up. So let him hang in the wind even if he gave up 80% of his dosh he will have more than he can ever count.
ok found out he waived his pay off?! The chief executive agreed to waive a pay-off, which includes the right to a year's salary - £1.29m in 2007. Including his £2.86m bonus, he was paid a total of £4.2m that year.
still small beer for the big boys, when asked by Congress the CEO of Lehmans Brothers if it was true his salary was $400 million he told them it was much lower and when pressed to answer said it was around $250 million !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! poor bastard how did he get by ?
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]The Government should have waited for Sir Fred's response and resolved this issue one way or another, before openly revealing it -in order to use public strength of feeling for their own political purposes.
The first question, therefore .......regardless of whether Sir Fred 'deserves' his huge pension or not, has the rights of this man been abused publicly ?
How would you people feel if your personal and private matters had been revealed in this way?
Don't confuse the question with the your own feelings about the size of his pension or 'fat cats' in general.
Good point Oggy.
As can be seen above I jumped in with both feet without thinking of all the implications.
On the other hand, given that RBS is being funded by taxpayers (ie you and me), is there not a right for the public to know how their money is being spent?
Absolutely, Len ..... but Alistair Darling publically revealed Sir Fred's personal information first.
The BBC reported:
"The chancellor said the government had not yet received a reply to the request."
Gordon Brown said: "Of course this is in the end a legal action matter and we'll have to wait for the outcome of that, if that is to take place.
So why didn't the Labour government wait?
1) If Sir Fred had agreed to a reduced pension - then there would be only positive news:
Win for Sir Fred publicly. Win for the governnent. And they both win the moral high ground.
2) There could be a legal action matter. Then surely what the Government has been saying may be subjudicial?
Agreed that we've a government that is too often desperate to say things to please the public, but RBS remains a publicly-quoted company - as well as one which is being bailed out by taxpayers - and so what it pays its top earners should be public knowledge.
1) If Sir Fred had agreed to a reduced pension - then there would be only positive news:
Win for Sir Fred publicly. Win for the governnent. And they both win the moral high ground.
2) There could be a legal action matter. Then surely what the Government has been saying may be subjudicial?
.............
The details of his pension would have been included in the annual accounts, along with the other directors. Whether the government should have given him time to "reconsider" whether he'd like to forego his pension is irrelevant as this information has by law to be published. In any case Goodwin himself has had several months to make the decision on whether to draw down his pension or not and clearly has decided that he will take it.
Personally, Sir Fred's effing "feelings" are of no significance to me whatsoever. He and his like are personally responsible for causing untold misery and upset around the world. Speaking as someone who has had to completely turn their life around (and suffered greatly financially) because of the way the economy has developed over the last 18 months, I find it very hard to have anything except contempt for him and his like.
My point wasn't about Sir Fred's feelings nor about the huge pension he was awarded through his contract.
That was not my issue.
Neither, the fact that's pension payments would be published in a plc's accounts.
Sure he could have 'volunteered' for a pension cut, in the same way as any other employee can volunteer that their pension or salary should be slashed.
Having privately asked him to consider, the government should have given reasonable time for a legally binding written answer.
Even though the government has blatantly gone about trying to win political gain for their own purposes, there is a principle of personal privacy at stake here.
Or should personal privacy no longer apply in this country .....?
[cite]Posted By: Oggy Red[/cite]there is a principle of personal privacy at stake here.
Or should personal privacy no longer apply in this country .....?
Of course it should but we are talking about exceptional circumstances within exceptional times. He is not some public sector worker earning minimum wage and hoping to eventually scrap by on his pension is he? With the huge salary and benefits that are awarded to these people comes a much closer degree of scrutiny and accountabilty. That's part of the deal. He knew that when he took the job, during the time he was making a right royal pigs ear of it and afterwards. Despite the result of his and others mismanagment causing financial hardship for the whole country the bloke still has the arrogance to believe he's entitled to an obscene amount of money each year, from a company we have had to bail out. Him retiring early has saved RBS (i.e. us) £1.5m in salary but is going to cost us extra £8m in pension and the bloke deserves every single bit of flack coming his way no matter what the governments motives.
Can't say I'm enamoured with it but if the board agreed to make the payout into his pension fund you can't claw it back. An attack on agreed pension funds, unless fraud can be proved, is just wrong sets a very threatening precedence for us all. To blame cabinet on this is farcical, Lord Myners job was to stabilise the bank quickly and with huge political pressure from Brown.
Everyone banging on about this should reflect on what was important about the bailout and ignore this paltry sideshow. Unless state workers should get lower pensions cos they ain't paid anywhere near enough in for their annuity they want out.
The papers love a good witch hunt and I think the government are trying to slyly deflect attention onto this one fella whilst ducking for cover themselves. I guess that's politics for you.
The papers love a good witch hunt and I think the government are trying to slyly deflect attention onto this one fella whilst ducking for cover themselves. I guess that's politics for you.
I can't believe you think they could be that cynical, as if Peter Mandelson would pull a stunt like that.....
My whole point is the way the Government has pulled a stunt like that.
Why? To get a knee-jerk response from media/public, to take attention away from their own inadequacy.
And it is a witch hunt. In doing that, the Government has deliberately chosen to victimise this man and violate his rights to privacy as a citizen. They could and should have gone about this issue in an entirely different way.
Suddenly, all this is an issue because the Government made the decision to underpin an ailing Bank.
So now some of it involves taxpayers money.
But there are plenty of retired Fat Cats, politicians and civil servants out there drawing six-figure pensions.
When people take retirement and a company pension, then they receive a percentage of their final salary.
You, me and everyone .... if they've got a company pension.
And it's paid from a pension fund with it's own cash and investment generating mechanism, separate from the accounts of the parent company.
So what's different here?
In the case of RBS, the Government isn't underpinning this pension fund - just the commercial company.
£650,000 per annum is a huge pension for anyone to receive - and maybe it is 'obscene' that one person should receive this much.
But is it 'obscene' because there is so much poverty and deprivation in the world - or because the Government decided that they could win desperately needed public support (and votes) by turning this into a huge media campaign.....?
It is a stunt.
And are they next going to target all retired Fat Cats, politicians and civil servants out there drawing six-figure pensions.... ?
Comments
These charge reclaims have been frozen since 27 July 2007 and the waiver will be lifted in July 2009 soonest.
Yet a parasite who has proved himself totally incompetent to the extent that the Government has had to take on 70% of the business he was running is paid a pension of that magnitude when still capable of work! Furthermore employees lower down the foodchain will undoubtedly be made redundant to pay for this jackass and others like him.
The World has gone mad!
he worry is that the OFT will be influenced in coming to a decision regarding charges by the current state of the Banking Industry. Rather like the way that the question of "Monopoly", following the amalgamation of the various instituitions, has been swept under the carpet - for the greater good of the fat cats in the Banks.
*Backs out of thread*
The first question, therefore .......regardless of whether Sir Fred 'deserves' his huge pension or not, has the rights of this man been abused publicly ?
How would you people feel if your personal and private matters had been revealed in this way?
Don't confuse the question with the your own feelings about the size of his pension or 'fat cats' in general.
Alan Pardew didn't!
Good point Oggy.
As can be seen above I jumped in with both feet without thinking of all the implications.
On the other hand, given that RBS is being funded by taxpayers (ie you and me), is there not a right for the public to know how their money is being spent?
The chief executive agreed to waive a pay-off, which includes the right to a year's salary - £1.29m in 2007. Including his £2.86m bonus, he was paid a total of £4.2m that year.
Absolutely, Len ..... but Alistair Darling publically revealed Sir Fred's personal information first.
The BBC reported:
"The chancellor said the government had not yet received a reply to the request."
Gordon Brown said:
"Of course this is in the end a legal action matter and we'll have to wait for the outcome of that, if that is to take place.
So why didn't the Labour government wait?
1) If Sir Fred had agreed to a reduced pension - then there would be only positive news:
Win for Sir Fred publicly. Win for the governnent. And they both win the moral high ground.
2) There could be a legal action matter. Then surely what the Government has been saying may be subjudicial?
1) If Sir Fred had agreed to a reduced pension - then there would be only positive news:
Win for Sir Fred publicly. Win for the governnent. And they both win the moral high ground.
2) There could be a legal action matter. Then surely what the Government has been saying may be subjudicial?
.............
The details of his pension would have been included in the annual accounts, along with the other directors. Whether the government should have given him time to "reconsider" whether he'd like to forego his pension is irrelevant as this information has by law to be published. In any case Goodwin himself has had several months to make the decision on whether to draw down his pension or not and clearly has decided that he will take it.
That was not my issue.
Neither, the fact that's pension payments would be published in a plc's accounts.
Sure he could have 'volunteered' for a pension cut, in the same way as any other employee can volunteer that their pension or salary should be slashed.
Having privately asked him to consider, the government should have given reasonable time for a legally binding written answer.
Even though the government has blatantly gone about trying to win political gain for their own purposes, there is a principle of personal privacy at stake here.
Or should personal privacy no longer apply in this country .....?
Of course it should but we are talking about exceptional circumstances within exceptional times. He is not some public sector worker earning minimum wage and hoping to eventually scrap by on his pension is he? With the huge salary and benefits that are awarded to these people comes a much closer degree of scrutiny and accountabilty. That's part of the deal. He knew that when he took the job, during the time he was making a right royal pigs ear of it and afterwards. Despite the result of his and others mismanagment causing financial hardship for the whole country the bloke still has the arrogance to believe he's entitled to an obscene amount of money each year, from a company we have had to bail out. Him retiring early has saved RBS (i.e. us) £1.5m in salary but is going to cost us extra £8m in pension and the bloke deserves every single bit of flack coming his way no matter what the governments motives.
Looking forward to seeing him give up his pension when it's due!
What a blood suckin cock
Everyone banging on about this should reflect on what was important about the bailout and ignore this paltry sideshow. Unless state workers should get lower pensions cos they ain't paid anywhere near enough in for their annuity they want out.
The papers love a good witch hunt and I think the government are trying to slyly deflect attention onto this one fella whilst ducking for cover themselves. I guess that's politics for you.
I can't believe you think they could be that cynical, as if Peter Mandelson would pull a stunt like that.....
Why? To get a knee-jerk response from media/public, to take attention away from their own inadequacy.
And it is a witch hunt. In doing that, the Government has deliberately chosen to victimise this man and violate his rights to privacy as a citizen. They could and should have gone about this issue in an entirely different way.
Suddenly, all this is an issue because the Government made the decision to underpin an ailing Bank.
So now some of it involves taxpayers money.
But there are plenty of retired Fat Cats, politicians and civil servants out there drawing six-figure pensions.
When people take retirement and a company pension, then they receive a percentage of their final salary.
You, me and everyone .... if they've got a company pension.
And it's paid from a pension fund with it's own cash and investment generating mechanism, separate from the accounts of the parent company.
So what's different here?
In the case of RBS, the Government isn't underpinning this pension fund - just the commercial company.
£650,000 per annum is a huge pension for anyone to receive - and maybe it is 'obscene' that one person should receive this much.
But is it 'obscene' because there is so much poverty and deprivation in the world - or because the Government decided that they could win desperately needed public support (and votes) by turning this into a huge media campaign.....?
It is a stunt.
And are they next going to target all retired Fat Cats, politicians and civil servants out there drawing six-figure pensions.... ?