Sir Fred Goodwin

[Crabby Shrimper]

Been in the papers a bit recently, Sir Fred Goodwin, ex RBS chief, and his £650,000 pa pension.

Now, I think the majority of us would agree that it's an obscene amount for someone who's hardly succeeded, but as he's refused to voluntarily drop the amount, the government appear to be considering legislative measures, and applying them retrospectively to grab some back.

So, was he right to refuse to voluntarily give up some of it? Should the government change the law retrospectively?

Personally, I feel it was a tremendous balls up allowing him to take that much money, but if it's now legally binding, then surely the government have to just accept that they screwed up? My personal belief is the politicians are just trying to look tough, and hope we dont notice their initial mistake.

 

[jamesmut2000]

Been in the papers a bit recently, Sir Fred Goodwin, ex RBS chief, and his £650,000 pa pension.

Now, I think the majority of us would agree that it's an obscene amount for someone who's hardly succeeded, but as he's refused to voluntarily drop the amount, the government appear to be considering legislative measures, and applying them retrospectively to grab some back.

So, was he right to refuse to voluntarily give up some of it? Should the government change the law retrospectively?

Personally, I feel it was a tremendous balls up allowing him to take that much money, but if it's now legally binding, then surely the government have to just accept that they screwed up? My personal belief is the politicians are just trying to look tough, and hope we dont notice their initial mistake.

As you say its a bit of a balls up but the problem is with those that offered him the deal. He doesnt have to give any of it up. If you compare it to football its down to the powers that be to offer ridiculous amounts of money.

If your boss comes to you tomorrow and offers you a similar deal would you say 'no thats too much - have some back'??

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

As you say its a bit of a balls up but the problem is with those that offered him the deal. He doesnt have to give any of it up. If you compare it to football its down to the powers that be to offer ridiculous amounts of money.

If your boss comes to you tomorrow and offers you a similar deal would you say 'no thats too much - have some back'??

Exactly my point. Yes, he's probably being a little stubborn, and yes it's probably more money than he needs, but at the end of the day it's still his money. Be interesting to see, if they do take some back, how much they actually save after all the legal fees.

 

[jamesmut2000]

Exactly my point. Yes, he's probably being a little stubborn, and yes it's probably more money than he needs, but at the end of the day it's still his money. Be interesting to see, if they do take some back, how much they actually save after all the legal fees.

Well,if it was me they could go whistle for it and I'd see them in court the stupid barstewards!!

 

[canveyshrimper]

Been in the papers a bit recently, Sir Fred Goodwin, ex RBS chief, and his £650,000 pa pension.

Now, I think the majority of us would agree that it's an obscene amount for someone who's hardly succeeded, but as he's refused to voluntarily drop the amount, the government appear to be considering legislative measures, and applying them retrospectively to grab some back.

So, was he right to refuse to voluntarily give up some of it? Should the government change the law retrospectively?

Personally, I feel it was a tremendous balls up allowing him to take that much money, but if it's now legally binding, then surely the government have to just accept that they screwed up? My personal belief is the politicians are just trying to look tough, and hope we dont notice their initial mistake.

Already partly covered here. As ever with this government it has cabinet ministers grubby finger prints all over it. Myners agreed the deal with Goodwin and I doubt if it was done without being rubber stamped by Darling and/or Brown.

As you say the government are now making noises about suing Goodwin however I think this is all a show of false bravado and they will hope that the whole sorry mess will fade into memories as soon as the next crisis or **** up rears its head.

 

[Southminster_Shrimper]

The only bit I think they will get back is the doubling in Oct 2008 if any. You would think he is lucky to get anything given both how much he has been paid in the good times and is still getting a handsome fund having wrecked the place.

He clearly wants it all for his own and his familys future.....its just a shame that we cant all claim that sort of pension for the same thing have made a major shambles of everything at the end.

I guess there is no price for being one of the most despised people in the UK.....so its his choice if he wants to live with that or not. I guess he prob can afford not to care too much. Hopefully that will change cos he doesnt deserve what he has ended up with.

 

[Southminster_Shrimper]

and he should not be a sir!! that should be taken away asap

 

[canveyshrimper]

and he should not be a sir!! that should be taken away asap

I am not sure if a knighthood can be revoked for criminal stupidity.

 

[Southminster_Shrimper]

I am not sure if a knighthood can be revoked for criminal stupidity.

costing the taxpayer x billion £s?

and i believe it was given for services to banking....errrrrm contradiction there me thinks? ;)

 

[canveyshrimper]

costing the taxpayer x billion £s?

and i believe it was given for services to banking....errrrrm contradiction there me thinks? ;)

Yes I've heard he is a merchant banker. :unsure:

 

[steveo]

We covered this in another thread with a poll. Most people in his position would have taken the money.If thats part of his deal then why not? If the government want to go after someone, then go after the people that wrote his contract, which would be errrmm them.

 

[colonelnutter]

We covered this in another thread with a poll. Most people in his position would have taken the money.If thats part of his deal then why not? If the government want to go after someone, then go after the people that wrote his contract, which would be errrmm them.

No it would be - errm - the bank that employed him and its remuneration committee. you - errm - read the Daily Mail too much judging from this and your other posts. Muppets like you will slag off this crisis and this government and then vote for the Cameron Tory party who are all mates with - errrm - City bankers. This government is a shambles but it is largely because it panders to the sh*t for brains lowest common denominator Sun/Mail reading pond life like you.

 

[steveo]

This government is a shambles but it is largely because it panders to the sh*t for brains lowest common denominator Sun/Mail reading pond life like you.

You seem to have a fixation about the Daily Mail - which incidentally I dont read so before making ******** statements like this why don't you try and get some facts right. This Government certainly doesn't pander to people like me, so wrong again, and to call me "**** for brains" is just offensive, presumably because I have different views from you.

Fortunately your offensive post doesn't bother me as the badly thought out opinion of a lefty ****, who considers himself far to intellectual to read popular newspapers, will make no difference to me whatsoever.

 

[Desert Shrimper]

Yep, it's nothing to do with the government - they've just singled him out as an example/scapegoat to "show the electorate how displeased we are with bankers." The tabloids have done the rest for them. Whether we/they like it or not, under the terms of the Royal Bank of Scotland remuneration policy, anyone who is asked to retire early by their employer is allowed to access their full pension immediately. Sir Fred is also one of the lucky few to still have a final salary scheme, so his pension pot is not conditional on the markets.

Basically, neither the bank nor the governement can move the goalposts now just because it's gone against them.

 

[steveo]

No it would be - errm - the bank that employed him and its remuneration committee. you - errm - read the Daily Mail too much judging from this and your other posts.

This is a quote from the Voice of The Mirror

Ministers were wrong to sanction the golden goodbye to get him out fast when RBS was teetering on the brink.

Not a newspaper normally red by "Muppets" like me.

And if this Government did pander to people like me, then people like you would be made to go out and work for your Dole money.