Tesco - another fail
Discussion
Following another three years of poor and falling profits the C.E.O. has thrown in the towel. Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not! It used to be a relative doddle to run decent profits year on year back pre 2008, now the market is far more challenging we see the true 'worth' of so called 'top people' without whom nobody would have a job 
Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse.
Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse. tenpenceshort said:
crankedup said:
Following another three years of poor and falling profits the C.E.O. has thrown in the towel. Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not! It used to be a relative doddle to run decent profits year on year back pre 2008, now the market is far more challenging we see the true 'worth' of so called 'top people' without whom nobody would have a job Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse.
Hey, how about some sympathy? Not everyone has your experience of running multi-billion pound international retailers, you know. Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse. Morrisons, Asda and Sainsburys are all flying along, aren't they!
Morrisons are on a downturn, Haven't looked at Sainsbury's but Asda are OK. Good retailing C.E.O.'s in the middle market must have seen the writing on the wall regarding expansion of their current business models post 2008. Lidl gave enough hints years ago that it was taking market share from the middle market supermarkets. Not sure if it was arrogance or simply unwittingly burying head in sand that have left Tesco floundering, perhaps simply took their eye off the ball.
greygoose said:
Not sure he had a good inheritance to take over really.
He was appointed with the fundamental task of turning Tesco around, the towel has been thrown in after three years. The sheer scale of the Corporation must prompt a close look (likely completed)at breaking up this juggernaut into more manageable slices.Pappa Lurve said:
crankedup said:
Following another three years of poor and falling profits the C.E.O. has thrown in the towel. Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not! It used to be a relative doddle to run decent profits year on year back pre 2008, now the market is far more challenging we see the true 'worth' of so called 'top people' without whom nobody would have a job Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse.
If it is so easy to do those kind of jobs, may I enquire as to why they didn't hire you? Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse. Wilmslowboy said:
crankedup said:
Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not!
Pretty much non of the board (and directors) received any bonuses for the past three years, one of the positives was PHil had the sense not to award himself a bonus whist the shareholder suffered.REALIST123 said:
crankedup said:
Pappa Lurve said:
crankedup said:
Following another three years of poor and falling profits the C.E.O. has thrown in the towel. Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not! It used to be a relative doddle to run decent profits year on year back pre 2008, now the market is far more challenging we see the true 'worth' of so called 'top people' without whom nobody would have a job Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse.
If it is so easy to do those kind of jobs, may I enquire as to why they didn't hire you? Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse. So, what should they be doing?
impossible to be able to make any decisions regarding future business strategy that may bring the Company back to former performance levels. The outgoing C.E.O. had the benefit of three years in which to identify the major problem areas. Now if you have a wander back in my thread you may notice that I alluded to a major area ripe for forensic investigation and consideration.
We know that the Company has abandoned further new development of its hypermarket strategy, but again they seem to be following business trend, not expected of a market leader.
Good to see humour alive and well on PH, wonderfully amusing to read a post advocating the merits of a failed C.E.O. How he worked his way up from a shelf stacker to C.E.O. over a forty year period within the Company. Its admirable for such sensitivity to be openly displayed and heart warming to read such posts. Honestly I took Heppers to be a rather hard nosed character, clearly he is not, how sweet.
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Good to see humour alive and well on PH, wonderfully amusing to read a post advocating the merits of a failed C.E.O. How he worked his way up from a shelf stacker to C.E.O. over a forty year period within the Company. Its admirable for such sensitivity to be openly displayed and heart warming to read such posts. Honestly I took Heppers to be a rather hard nosed character, clearly he is not, how sweet.
It's the "He's more successful than me so I must not like him" mentality.Ultimately driven by envy.
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Good to see humour alive and well on PH, wonderfully amusing to read a post advocating the merits of a failed C.E.O. How he worked his way up from a shelf stacker to C.E.O. over a forty year period within the Company. Its admirable for such sensitivity to be openly displayed and heart warming to read such posts. Honestly I took Heppers to be a rather hard nosed character, clearly he is not, how sweet.
It's the "He's more successful than me so I must not like him" mentality.Ultimately driven by envy.
If the CEO was on £25k a year, would he still receive the same vitriol? I somehow doubt it. He gets paid a fortune because that's what the shareholders/board think he's worth when employing him.
Whether or not the chief was any good or not is determined by his qualities as a CEO. That's not in question, however for a lot they are simply easy targets. Who put them there is then the real question. The "game" is broken yet everyone still blames the players.
Pappa Lurve said:
crankedup said:
REALIST123 said:
crankedup said:
Pappa Lurve said:
crankedup said:
Following another three years of poor and falling profits the C.E.O. has thrown in the towel. Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not! It used to be a relative doddle to run decent profits year on year back pre 2008, now the market is far more challenging we see the true 'worth' of so called 'top people' without whom nobody would have a job Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse.
If it is so easy to do those kind of jobs, may I enquire as to why they didn't hire you? Forward thinking long term strategies, they couldn't have done much worse. So, what should they be doing?
impossible to be able to make any decisions regarding future business strategy that may bring the Company back to former performance levels. The outgoing C.E.O. had the benefit of three years in which to identify the major problem areas. Now if you have a wander back in my thread you may notice that I alluded to a major area ripe for forensic investigation and consideration.
We know that the Company has abandoned further new development of its hypermarket strategy, but again they seem to be following business trend, not expected of a market leader.
Simple example, I did a very small bit of work for them on a new service last year. It is way too early in the curve to launch and may never be so, I have no idea, not my job! However, it was, and remains, drastically ahead of anything their competition is offering right now. Maybe they also have something in development, maybe not, no idea but while they may seem to follow the market, they tend not to in some parts. And since when is following the market a bad thing?! When the iPod range first appeared, everyone went nuts despite the fact that it was nothing new, just a very good execution, same can be said for lots of apples products but they seem to do ok generally! And yes, that is an industry and technology of which I am indeed well able to comment.
The problem for Tesco in appearing to follow the market is quite simply this leading to shareholder concern. A major Corp' must always lead or loose market share, it really is that simple. Its more so when new competition comes in, after all would you want to invest into a follower? They just seem to be treading water but still sinking, which is not good enough, its why the C.E.O. has walked.
I see nothing about Tesco which I particularly like in a personal sense, but that isn't to say its a bad long term investment. They need a good shake down.
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Good to see humour alive and well on PH, wonderfully amusing to read a post advocating the merits of a failed C.E.O. How he worked his way up from a shelf stacker to C.E.O. over a forty year period within the Company. Its admirable for such sensitivity to be openly displayed and heart warming to read such posts. Honestly I took Heppers to be a rather hard nosed character, clearly he is not, how sweet.
It's the "He's more successful than me so I must not like him" mentality.Ultimately driven by envy.
If the CEO was on £25k a year, would he still receive the same vitriol? I somehow doubt it. He gets paid a fortune because that's what the shareholders/board think he's worth when employing him.
Whether or not the chief was any good or not is determined by his qualities as a CEO. That's not in question, however for a lot they are simply easy targets. Who put them there is then the real question. The "game" is broken yet everyone still blames the players.
Pesty said:
toppstuff said:
Westy Carl said:
Blimey, it's just a shop.
When I find my precious life ticking away in places like Tesco they are not "just a shop". They are an unnecessary source of ugliness and a lack of pleasure. They suck up time I can never get back. Life is too short to spend time in such an unedifying retail prison.
Supermarket shopping for me is about getting in and getting out in the quickest and most efficient manner possible, while being in a pleasant environment while I have to be there. Tesco fails on all of these important criteria.
I realise I'm bordering on some kind of autistic spectrum because listening to radio 4 the other day some expert was saying tesco are in trouble because nobody knows what they stand for, what their values are. Errm what?
It's a f
king supermarket you go in and you buy food. I go to the closest one to me because they are all the same. Does anybody actually drive past a tesco to go to a morrisons?Fun Bus said:
An interesting thread.
Tesco are well aware that their market share is slipping and profits falling. As a result, they are doing a lot about it - but what they're doing won't be noticeable to the customer as it is all back room. They're engaging with suppliers and hauliers more than ever in order to drive savings. To be fair to Tesco, the savings benefit both parties from what I've seen. There was one project which is still early days and will benefit the customer but most would never notice that on shelf availability is better as they'll just take it for granted the products they want are a available,
In light of all this 'failing' the projected Express format expansion over the next five years is staggering.
Yup Tesco have always been good at driving down prices from their suppliers chain. Its just one of the aspects of the business that has annoyed ordinary shoppers, rightly or wrongly. How the business is perceived by customers has to be one of the top priorities imo. The outlets that I have had a shopping trip around are very drab and unappealing, with little choice in so many lines. Tesco are well aware that their market share is slipping and profits falling. As a result, they are doing a lot about it - but what they're doing won't be noticeable to the customer as it is all back room. They're engaging with suppliers and hauliers more than ever in order to drive savings. To be fair to Tesco, the savings benefit both parties from what I've seen. There was one project which is still early days and will benefit the customer but most would never notice that on shelf availability is better as they'll just take it for granted the products they want are a available,
In light of all this 'failing' the projected Express format expansion over the next five years is staggering.
Looking forward to see how the incoming C.E.O. fares, one thing for sure the customer is now far less loyal and forgiving than years gone by, some may use the word sophisticated as well.
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Good to see humour alive and well on PH, wonderfully amusing to read a post advocating the merits of a failed C.E.O. How he worked his way up from a shelf stacker to C.E.O. over a forty year period within the Company. Its admirable for such sensitivity to be openly displayed and heart warming to read such posts. Honestly I took Heppers to be a rather hard nosed character, clearly he is not, how sweet.
It's the "He's more successful than me so I must not like him" mentality.Ultimately driven by envy.
If the CEO was on £25k a year, would he still receive the same vitriol? I somehow doubt it. He gets paid a fortune because that's what the shareholders/board think he's worth when employing him.
Whether or not the chief was any good or not is determined by his qualities as a CEO. That's not in question, however for a lot they are simply easy targets. Who put them there is then the real question. The "game" is broken yet everyone still blames the players.
Yes I am being flippant d**k... Because so are you by criticising someone who has run a company that has made a £3bn profit and received a tiny fraction of that as reward. You only care about the fact he got a certain number, you have a problem with that because you can't do it and you think it is by some moral compass you hold wrong. You are f**king boring to be honest and you need to just wind your neck in and understand that people do things you neither understand or think are valuable because you don't understand them.
Hello its Mystic Meg again, the all knowing glass ball person. Look into my eyes, you are a factory worker who worked on the factory floor,
a lovely plated gold watch after 45 years service. (Nought wrong with that, where there's muck there's brass). At times during my working life I wished I had been that person. Its the old adage 'spend half your life getting to the top and the second half wishing you hadn't bothered'. Much the same as running a business. Quite pleased really that my thread generated 7 pages thus far. Most posters have had a few negatives regarding Tesco, this is a perception of how well/poorly the Company is doing from 'the peoples' perception. It is the C.E.O. THAT HAS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY for the performance of the Company. Why is it you seem to have difficulty separating poor performance from reasonable or good performance? As a Director of seven Companies I would have thought you had an understanding of this issue.
heppers75 said:
wolves_wanderer said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Dracoro said:
crankedup said:
Good to see humour alive and well on PH, wonderfully amusing to read a post advocating the merits of a failed C.E.O. How he worked his way up from a shelf stacker to C.E.O. over a forty year period within the Company. Its admirable for such sensitivity to be openly displayed and heart warming to read such posts. Honestly I took Heppers to be a rather hard nosed character, clearly he is not, how sweet.
It's the "He's more successful than me so I must not like him" mentality.Ultimately driven by envy.
If the CEO was on £25k a year, would he still receive the same vitriol? I somehow doubt it. He gets paid a fortune because that's what the shareholders/board think he's worth when employing him.
Whether or not the chief was any good or not is determined by his qualities as a CEO. That's not in question, however for a lot they are simply easy targets. Who put them there is then the real question. The "game" is broken yet everyone still blames the players.
Yes I am being flippant d**k... Because so are you by criticising someone who has run a company that has made a £3bn profit and received a tiny fraction of that as reward. You only care about the fact he got a certain number, you have a problem with that because you can't do it and you think it is by some moral compass you hold wrong. You are f**king boring to be honest and you need to just wind your neck in and understand that people do things you neither understand or think are valuable because you don't understand them.
You mean knob not nob!!
ETA - Just because as much of a knob as I am sure I am it is worth making a stand where you can.
The left wing nutter that started this thread just hates the world, he thinks that there is some daft ceiling on earnings that is derived from some arbitrary fraction he alone possess based on a calculation that he alone should arbitrate and never really share.
I will tell you all right now if crankedup can give us his "fair equation" with regards to CEO pay and we can all understand and agree it I will personally donate £1000 the charity of his choice.
Edited by heppers75 on Thursday 24th July 22:28
As for the equation of a fair C.E.O. remuneration package, simple enough, its at the point of 100% of the shareholders signing off the pay board recommendations. Now that 1k, please donate this money to EACH (East Anglia's Childrens Hospice).
Registration Company : 03550187
Charity No : 1069284
VAT No : 784571785
Hackney said:
crankedup said:
Yup Tesco have always been good at driving down prices from their suppliers chain. Its just one of the aspects of the business that has annoyed ordinary shoppers, rightly or wrongly.
That's an interesting point.I think there's a huge disconnect between what angers people and how they actually shop.
On the one hand you'll read in the news about the masses of perfectly good fruit and veg that's thrown away because it's the wrong shape or size.
Yet if that makes it to the shelves it will remain there because no-one buys it.
People complain about confusing pricing, or being overwhelmed by promotions yet if a retailer / brand didn't promote they'd lose out. (Asda tried it, yet pulled back from it)
We like to complain about the monopoly that is Tesco, that £1 in every £3 spent on grocery is in Tesco but it's us that put it there. It's us that made Tesco (and Asda, JS, Morrisons) the way they are. And they are all the same no-one's strategy is different from the others... except Morrisons perhaps who are 5 years behind in online and convenience but avoided the whole horsemeat scandal as they actually own their own farms. Something they didn't shout about at all!
Why is there a Tesco in every town, why is there an Express on every high street... because we demand them.
Fun Bus said:
crankedup said:
.(didn't know Morrisons had their own farms!)
And slaughter house, bakery (I don't mean instore) and a flower wholesaler.
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Heppers, you need to get a grip and accept that we have differing POV. Your rantings are not a sign of a person who proclaims to hold numerous Boardroom seats, this belittles your status.
As for the equation of a fair C.E.O. remuneration package, simple enough, its at the point of 100% of the shareholders signing off the pay board recommendations. Now that 1k, please donate this money to EACH (East Anglia's Childrens Hospice).
Registration Company : 03550187
Charity No : 1069284
VAT No : 784571785
If you genuinely think that every CEO and board members package of remuneration should be subject to the agreement of 100% of all shareholders of every company then you have no idea whatsoever of the sheer stupidity and the mechanics that statement entails. I think you will find as we live in a democracy at best it should be like a majority of other decisions which get hived into any shareholder agreement of many companies based on an agreed percentage of shareholders. This is quite common practice for a vast majority of companies particularly around fiscal matters; had you been involved at this level you would perhaps have an appreciation of that! As for the equation of a fair C.E.O. remuneration package, simple enough, its at the point of 100% of the shareholders signing off the pay board recommendations. Now that 1k, please donate this money to EACH (East Anglia's Childrens Hospice).
Registration Company : 03550187
Charity No : 1069284
VAT No : 784571785
Yes we do have differing POV's clearly, however my objection to yours is based on having experience on both sides of the fence, yours seems simply to be driven by a core, fundamental and ideological disagreement to a level of earnings above a given level. Which I might add no matter how hard pressed you are you seem unable to articulate, outside of a single suggestion that is so hideously impractical and unworkable it is actually laughable! For reference you are very much like a large majority of people in my personal life from whom as I have progressed in life I have for the most part left behind as they have no concept of the realities of the situations on which they seem to hold such vehement opinions.
Like many it is a disagreement based on a chronically flawed ideology, a dogmatic belief in an opposing view and one that cannot be explained in rational terms as it has no rational basis. It is, as much as you dislike and wish to pick on the statement envy driven stupidity and a desire to rally against the big bad boss and it never matters if they worked their way up from the shop floor, are self made men who started something from nothing or were born into royalty it all boils down to the same thing - hate/dislike based on someone having more than your ideology and personal opinion deems is right.
FYI as you at least made an attempt and even though I don't think it was even 10% worthy of an answer I have donated 10% of my offer! Make a better argument and you might see the rest.
ETA - just in case the validity of my donation is questioned...
Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 27th July 17:19
.
Should have made this clearer, what I mean is that it would have been quite usual for a Corporation to offer incentives ON performance turning the business around. Although this is plainly not always the case.Hang on, isn't that exactly what the board have done... incentives = bonuses etc. So no turnaround, no bonus, that's what they have done - what are you complaining about exactly?
I do suspect that you are just simply banging the same old drum about anyone that gets paid more as a basic salary than some arbitrary limit you deem acceptable is some sort of robber baron!
I wasn't going to bother with a reply initially, but upon reflection. Should this Boardroom require an incentive for improved Company performance. Seems to me that is quite wrong, poor performance over a sustained period should mean dismissal. The only people who should further benefit should be the Company owners. Shareholders, those people like me that risk their own money.
Yes there would be exceptions, for instance if the basic remuneration package is modest and the built in incentives then clearly work as a true incentive to performance.
I long for the day when the greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders are cut back to sane levels of reward. Shareholder pressure is slowly beginning to have an impact but it will take some years yet, unfortunately. My opinion is a broad narrative not necessarily including the Company we are discussing in this thread.
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Wilmslowboy said:
crankedup said:
Will he be passing back all the incentives offered to turn around the mighty Titanic that is Tesco's, of course not!
Pretty much non of the board (and directors) received any bonuses for the past three years, one of the positives was PHil had the sense not to award himself a bonus whist the shareholder suffered.I do suspect that you are just simply banging the same old drum about anyone that gets paid more as a basic salary than some arbitrary limit you deem acceptable is some sort of robber baron!
Edited by heppers75 on Monday 21st July 23:35
Yes there would be exceptions, for instance if the basic remuneration package is modest and the built in incentives then clearly work as a true incentive to performance.
I long for the day when the greedy self serving Boards of those Companies owned by non family shareholders are cut back to sane levels of reward. Shareholder pressure is slowly beginning to have an impact but it will take some years yet, unfortunately. My opinion is a broad narrative not necessarily including the Company we are discussing in this thread.
JensenA said:
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Heppers, you need to get a grip and accept that we have differing POV. Your rantings are not a sign of a person who proclaims to hold numerous Boardroom seats, this belittles your status.
As for the equation of a fair C.E.O. remuneration package, simple enough, its at the point of 100% of the shareholders signing off the pay board recommendations. Now that 1k, please donate this money to EACH (East Anglia's Childrens Hospice).
Registration Company : 03550187
Charity No : 1069284
VAT No : 784571785
If you genuinely think that every CEO and board members package of remuneration should be subject to the agreement of 100% of all shareholders of every company then you have no idea whatsoever of the sheer stupidity and the mechanics that statement entails. I think you will find as we live in a democracy at best it should be like a majority of other decisions which get hived into any shareholder agreement of many companies based on an agreed percentage of shareholders. This is quite common practice for a vast majority of companies particularly around fiscal matters; had you been involved at this level you would perhaps have an appreciation of that! As for the equation of a fair C.E.O. remuneration package, simple enough, its at the point of 100% of the shareholders signing off the pay board recommendations. Now that 1k, please donate this money to EACH (East Anglia's Childrens Hospice).
Registration Company : 03550187
Charity No : 1069284
VAT No : 784571785
Yes we do have differing POV's clearly, however my objection to yours is based on having experience on both sides of the fence, yours seems simply to be driven by a core, fundamental and ideological disagreement to a level of earnings above a given level. Which I might add no matter how hard pressed you are you seem unable to articulate, outside of a single suggestion that is so hideously impractical and unworkable it is actually laughable! For reference you are very much like a large majority of people in my personal life from whom as I have progressed in life I have for the most part left behind as they have no concept of the realities of the situations on which they seem to hold such vehement opinions.
Like many it is a disagreement based on a chronically flawed ideology, a dogmatic belief in an opposing view and one that cannot be explained in rational terms as it has no rational basis. It is, as much as you dislike and wish to pick on the statement envy driven stupidity and a desire to rally against the big bad boss and it never matters if they worked their way up from the shop floor, are self made men who started something from nothing or were born into royalty it all boils down to the same thing - hate/dislike based on someone having more than your ideology and personal opinion deems is right.
FYI as you at least made an attempt and even though I don't think it was even 10% worthy of an answer I have donated 10% of my offer! Make a better argument and you might see the rest.
ETA - just in case the validity of my donation is questioned...
Edited by heppers75 on Sunday 27th July 17:19
Nope I do not buy any Lottery tickets and I have absolutely no intention of giving more money (or assistance) to any charity.
Immoral earnings amongst sports people, film stars, F1 drivers, pop stars, you ask am I going to 'rant on' about those people. I can only quote Andy Murray 'yes I am grossly overpaid' refreshingly honest imo.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff