At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank
Discussion
league67 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
league67 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm nowhere near clever enough....
Let me help you out. I do feel charitable today. Being 'without no sense of smell' is clearly huge obstacle to becoming a doctor. Pure mensa material. Thanks for the entertainment. 
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Is that so. In your expert medical opinion, how do most doctors suspect a patient coming into their surgery might have diabetes?
Ok. I'll type very slowly and I will use short words, just for you. My charitable work is obviously needed.'without absolutely no sense of smell' = with sense of smell = hardly a problem.
'without sense of smell'= no sense of smell = might be a problem, but I doubt it.
Clear?
league67 said:
Pure mensa material.
Ahh, I get it. You're one of these pathetic little men who haven't got the brains to actually contribute to a debate, so you pick up grammatical errors instead. Does it help boost your little ego?I might not be Mensa material (capital M for Mensa, it's the name of an organisation, and names start with capital, that's nursery school stuff) but the great thing about PH is that reading posts from the likes of you, I can feel like I'm Mensa material!
Seeing a few pages added to my thread thought I would look in for a read, Oh dear. Back onto topic then, or almost at least. Media reports a growing number of Companies are now experiencing 'shareholders revolt' in one case leading to the CEO walking away. Her remuneration had risen from 1.3 million in 2003 to over 2.00 million to date without a commensurate improvement in Company profit. Hopefully they will find a CEO who is able to deliver.
crankedup said:
Seeing a few pages added to my thread thought I would look in for a read, Oh dear. Back onto topic then, or almost at least. Media reports a growing number of Companies are now experiencing 'shareholders revolt' in one case leading to the CEO walking away. Her remuneration had risen from 1.3 million in 2003 to over 2.00 million to date without a commensurate improvement in Company profit. Hopefully they will find a CEO who is able to deliver.
And if the new CEO produces worse results than the old, they might just regret their actions.TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
Seeing a few pages added to my thread thought I would look in for a read, Oh dear. Back onto topic then, or almost at least. Media reports a growing number of Companies are now experiencing 'shareholders revolt' in one case leading to the CEO walking away. Her remuneration had risen from 1.3 million in 2003 to over 2.00 million to date without a commensurate improvement in Company profit. Hopefully they will find a CEO who is able to deliver.
And if the new CEO produces worse results than the old, they might just regret their actions.So, RBS has paid back every penny now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17944066
So the "poor taxpayer" has done rather well out of this "bail out" - what have you got to say about that Crankers? The taxpayers have made a PROFIT!
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 8th May 09:51
Soovy said:
So, RBS has paid back every penny now then, and the taxpayer still holds a majority stake.
So the "poor taxpayer" has done rather well out of this "bail out" - what have you got to say about that Crankers?
RBS crawls out from the swamp! when the Government release the shares onto the market they might be worth a punt, although I would be wary as Hester is sure to step down soon and who will step in? Meanwhile those long term holders are still nursing a nasty bruising. Not very much in profit but some better then none for the Taxpayer, so a win win for taxpayer and RBS as Hester makes painful progress off loading Companies as he goes. I would say he is doing a good job overall.So the "poor taxpayer" has done rather well out of this "bail out" - what have you got to say about that Crankers?
Meanwhile Aviva boss walks away from shareholder pressure.
crankedup said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
Seeing a few pages added to my thread thought I would look in for a read, Oh dear. Back onto topic then, or almost at least. Media reports a growing number of Companies are now experiencing 'shareholders revolt' in one case leading to the CEO walking away. Her remuneration had risen from 1.3 million in 2003 to over 2.00 million to date without a commensurate improvement in Company profit. Hopefully they will find a CEO who is able to deliver.
And if the new CEO produces worse results than the old, they might just regret their actions.Aviva now have to recruit a reeplacement, presumabley on a much lower salary to satisfy the shareholders. Be interesting to see how that goes. But in my experience, pay peanuts, get monkeys.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
Seeing a few pages added to my thread thought I would look in for a read, Oh dear. Back onto topic then, or almost at least. Media reports a growing number of Companies are now experiencing 'shareholders revolt' in one case leading to the CEO walking away. Her remuneration had risen from 1.3 million in 2003 to over 2.00 million to date without a commensurate improvement in Company profit. Hopefully they will find a CEO who is able to deliver.
And if the new CEO produces worse results than the old, they might just regret their actions.Aviva now have to recruit a reeplacement, presumabley on a much lower salary to satisfy the shareholders. Be interesting to see how that goes. But in my experience, pay peanuts, get monkeys.
They will need to spend time trying to convince candidates they are the right company to work for.
They will need to compensate any shares/bonus/special schemes that the candidate has from current job.
They will need to pay them more than previous job.
Possibly give some better perks than current job.
All that will cost the company a pretty penny, if you think they don't need to do any of the above then you are mistaken or they are bringing in monkeys.
Du1point8 said:
They won't get anyone that is currently working then...
They will need to spend time trying to convince candidates they are the right company to work for.
They will need to compensate any shares/bonus/special schemes that the candidate has from current job.
They will need to pay them more than previous job.
Possibly give some better perks than current job.
All that will cost the company a pretty penny, if you think they don't need to do any of the above then you are mistaken or they are bringing in monkeys.
Nail/head.They will need to spend time trying to convince candidates they are the right company to work for.
They will need to compensate any shares/bonus/special schemes that the candidate has from current job.
They will need to pay them more than previous job.
Possibly give some better perks than current job.
All that will cost the company a pretty penny, if you think they don't need to do any of the above then you are mistaken or they are bringing in monkeys.
Not so long ago shareholders would make no difference whatever they voted, I was advised that I was a t
t for suggesting that change was coming. That was some time ago, now its happening. Allow me to advise that good CEO and Directors are willing able and ready to accept the challenges of positions that become vacant. They will be offered decent salaries commensurate with responsibility and performance targets. Its life Jim, but not how it used to be.
t for suggesting that change was coming. That was some time ago, now its happening. Allow me to advise that good CEO and Directors are willing able and ready to accept the challenges of positions that become vacant. They will be offered decent salaries commensurate with responsibility and performance targets. Its life Jim, but not how it used to be.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff