Bp Directors Pay

[johnwilliams77]

crankedup said:

Good points, of course each situation should be judged upon and decisions made accordingly. The major problem is the pay packages growing beyond a level which Society and ordinary workers perceive as fair and reasonable. My comments concerning morale and so on are born from what is rightly and widely termed as excessive Boardroom greed. We can argue all day about the plus and minus issues that may or may not warrant such e excess, the crux of the matter is public perception and worker morale. Perhaps BP issues could have been resolved by a CEO on half the pay package. This is fundamental and it is the issue which is now causing much concern for those in high office. When issues reach these levels it is clearly requiring serious actions to resolve.
Like I said at the the top though, I agree that good directional management requires good judgements and decision making to resolve problems that have underlying effects upon Company longevity and properity. How did BP get into such difficulties, yes a rig disaster and flattening oil price, neither could have been foreseen in fairness. For me and 57% of fellow shareholders the share price and under performance of the company is hard to stomach, to see the boss rewarded so grandly is even harder to stomach.

The low oil price should have been no great surprise to most in the industry with an ounce of knowledge.

[crankedup]

johnwilliams77 said:

crankedup said:

Good points, of course each situation should be judged upon and decisions made accordingly. The major problem is the pay packages growing beyond a level which Society and ordinary workers perceive as fair and reasonable. My comments concerning morale and so on are born from what is rightly and widely termed as excessive Boardroom greed. We can argue all day about the plus and minus issues that may or may not warrant such e excess, the crux of the matter is public perception and worker morale. Perhaps BP issues could have been resolved by a CEO on half the pay package. This is fundamental and it is the issue which is now causing much concern for those in high office. When issues reach these levels it is clearly requiring serious actions to resolve.
Like I said at the the top though, I agree that good directional management requires good judgements and decision making to resolve problems that have underlying effects upon Company longevity and properity. How did BP get into such difficulties, yes a rig disaster and flattening oil price, neither could have been foreseen in fairness. For me and 57% of fellow shareholders the share price and under performance of the company is hard to stomach, to see the boss rewarded so grandly is even harder to stomach.

The low oil price should have been no great surprise to most in the industry with an ounce of knowledge.

Agreed, I was being generous! However, it was flagged up as an excuse for such abysmal performance by the Company in recent times. And only added to th anger of shareholders.

[speedyman]

sidicks said:

Randy Winkman said:

Some people here are very pedantic and just love to point out that nobody in the UK is dying of starvation.

Only when it's relevant - being accurate and being pedantic are quite different - and where other people appear to be claiming otherwise.

Also it seems to be forgotten that circa 50% of that 'obscene' pay package goes straight to the exchequer as tax, to fund public spending for the 'many'.

As inconvenient as all the above might be...

And by paying either the rest of the workforce more money or investing more of the 14 million in the company the tax still gets to the exchequer eventually via paye, vat or other means when the money gets spent.
What a lame excuse to justify huge pay packets.

[Challo]

franki68 said:

sidicks said:

Sounds like you're one of the people that voted on the Guardian poll that supported higher taxes on the 'rich' even if it meant less tax income and hence less support for the poorest in society.

Illogical.

Me... a guardian reader ? I'm not sure how many lambo/aston/porsche driving guardian readers there are but not too many I think.


This is not a discussion about tax collecting,this is the morality of paying someone £14m for not doing their job very well.
Even those that do actually get results for their companies are very rarely worth the packages they are on ,most are in charge of companies that are so dominant in their segment you would have to me a moron not to make money.

most people in this country struggle to make ends meet,I see iot all the time ,every day that is not fiction.Where would we be without credit ? everyone is in debt.

How do you know he is not doing his job very well? He had certain T&C in his contract that if he met deemed he received his 14m pay packet. He has obviously met them, and BP have paid out the 14m in salary, pensions, and shares, which if the share price tanks could mean he gets a lot less then the 14m quoted.

Do I think the 14m is high? Yes but BP board has agreed the package, and it's obviously to the company that the CEO meeting his targets will make/save BP a lot more money.

All these big companies have boards, shareholders who all agree the remuneration packages and they obviously deem that the salaries are acceptable.
Question for you. How much do you think he should be paid? Is it a fixed amount? Plus bonuses?

[sidicks]

speedyman said:

And by paying either the rest of the workforce more money or investing more of the 14 million in the company the tax still gets to the exchequer eventually via paye, vat or other means when the money gets spent.

Paying the same across the rest of the workforce (or within the company) results in lower total tax - surely you can see that?

speedyman said:

What a lame excuse to justify huge pay packets.

Not sure I did any such thing.

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 16th April 17:22

[sidicks]

franki68 said:

Me... a guardian reader ? I'm not sure how many lambo/aston/porsche driving guardian readers there are but not too many I think.

This is not a discussion about tax collecting,this is the morality of paying someone £14m for not doing their job very well.. Even those that do actually get results for their companies are very rarely worth the packages they are on ,most are in charge of companies that are so dominant in their segment you would have to me a moron not to make money.

On what basis do you make that claim?

franki68 said:

most people in this country struggle to make ends meet,I see iot all the time ,every day that is not fiction.Where would we be without credit ? everyone is in debt.

I don't believe most people are in debt because they are borrowing to survive, I think that many who are in debt have been borrowing to fund a lifestyle they can't afford, that's entirely different.

[Halb]

johnfm said:

This thread will loosely follow the following pattern:

calls for curbs and capping on exec pay by Crankedup et al

Responses by Turbobloke et al that a company is free to pay its workers whatever they like.

Counter arguments that it is all a cosy old boys club where execs sit on eachother's remuneration committees

Further claims that execs deserve the money because they make the shareholders more money

Counter arguments that execs of listed companies are not actually taking any risks, unlike 'real' entrepreneurs who have skin in the game

Counters to this, that an exec's 'skin in the game' is their reputation

Scoffing at this that failed execs often then land another CEO job at another listed company because there are actually very few candidates in the field with CEO experience

Further countless assertions (based on out-group bias) by people who never ever be CEOs or earn CEO money that the CEO group are fully entitled to their pay

Concluding in absolutely zero change to the system and a continued wealth transfer from shareholders and customers to highly paid execs.

Does that about cover it?

[Halb]

jshell said:

I'm confused. I'm a self-proclaimed capitalist, definitely veering 'right'. However, some posters on here make me want to go and read up on Marx and Lenin, coz they make me feel like some kinda 'leftist, hand-wringer'.

You're just not enough of a rapacious, scruple/moral free Victorian.

Be more Reacher Gilt.

rhinochopig said:

Any thoughts on Prometheus John?

Oh that's good.

Edited by Halb on Saturday 16th April 17:48

[crankedup]

Challo said:

franki68 said:

sidicks said:

Sounds like you're one of the people that voted on the Guardian poll that supported higher taxes on the 'rich' even if it meant less tax income and hence less support for the poorest in society.

Illogical.

Me... a guardian reader ? I'm not sure how many lambo/aston/porsche driving guardian readers there are but not too many I think.


This is not a discussion about tax collecting,this is the morality of paying someone £14m for not doing their job very well.
Even those that do actually get results for their companies are very rarely worth the packages they are on ,most are in charge of companies that are so dominant in their segment you would have to me a moron not to make money.

most people in this country struggle to make ends meet,I see iot all the time ,every day that is not fiction.Where would we be without credit ? everyone is in debt.

How do you know he is not doing his job very well? He had certain T&C in his contract that if he met deemed he received his 14m pay packet. He has obviously met them, and BP have paid out the 14m in salary, pensions, and shares, which if the share price tanks could mean he gets a lot less then the 14m quoted.

Do I think the 14m is high? Yes but BP board has agreed the package, and it's obviously to the company that the CEO meeting his targets will make/save BP a lot more money.

All these big companies have boards, shareholders who all agree the remuneration packages and they obviously deem that the salaries are acceptable.
Question for you. How much do you think he should be paid? Is it a fixed amount? Plus bonuses?

These big companies do not have shareholders who agree Board pay packages, shareholders may vote for or against recommendations regarding the issue. However, these votes are non binding and it is this that is a major problem now.

[crankedup]

Halb said:

johnfm said:

This thread will loosely follow the following pattern:

calls for curbs and capping on exec pay by Crankedup et al

Responses by Turbobloke et al that a company is free to pay its workers whatever they like.

Counter arguments that it is all a cosy old boys club where execs sit on eachother's remuneration committees

Further claims that execs deserve the money because they make the shareholders more money

Counter arguments that execs of listed companies are not actually taking any risks, unlike 'real' entrepreneurs who have skin in the game

Counters to this, that an exec's 'skin in the game' is their reputation

Scoffing at this that failed execs often then land another CEO job at another listed company because there are actually very few candidates in the field with CEO experience

Further countless assertions (based on out-group bias) by people who never ever be CEOs or earn CEO money that the CEO group are fully entitled to their pay

Concluding in absolutely zero change to the system and a continued wealth transfer from shareholders and customers to highly paid execs.

Does that about cover it?

It's good to talk, try it sometime.

[Halb]

crankedup said:

Halb said:

johnfm said:

This thread will loosely follow the following pattern:

calls for curbs and capping on exec pay by Crankedup et al

Responses by Turbobloke et al that a company is free to pay its workers whatever they like.

Counter arguments that it is all a cosy old boys club where execs sit on eachother's remuneration committees

Further claims that execs deserve the money because they make the shareholders more money

Counter arguments that execs of listed companies are not actually taking any risks, unlike 'real' entrepreneurs who have skin in the game

Counters to this, that an exec's 'skin in the game' is their reputation

Scoffing at this that failed execs often then land another CEO job at another listed company because there are actually very few candidates in the field with CEO experience

Further countless assertions (based on out-group bias) by people who never ever be CEOs or earn CEO money that the CEO group are fully entitled to their pay

Concluding in absolutely zero change to the system and a continued wealth transfer from shareholders and customers to highly paid execs.

Does that about cover it?

It's good to talk, try it sometime.

I'm a voyeur by nature.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Halb said:

johnfm said:

This thread will loosely follow the following pattern:

calls for curbs and capping on exec pay by Crankedup et al

Responses by Turbobloke et al that a company is free to pay its workers whatever they like.

Counter arguments that it is all a cosy old boys club where execs sit on eachother's remuneration committees

Further claims that execs deserve the money because they make the shareholders more money

Counter arguments that execs of listed companies are not actually taking any risks, unlike 'real' entrepreneurs who have skin in the game

Counters to this, that an exec's 'skin in the game' is their reputation

Scoffing at this that failed execs often then land another CEO job at another listed company because there are actually very few candidates in the field with CEO experience

Further countless assertions (based on out-group bias) by people who never ever be CEOs or earn CEO money that the CEO group are fully entitled to their pay

Concluding in absolutely zero change to the system and a continued wealth transfer from shareholders and customers to highly paid execs.

Does that about cover it?

It's good to talk, try it sometime.

Also if johnfm would be so kind as to humour us further by posting the winning lottery numbers for tonight's draw in the next hour or so, alongside the present and future remuneration pattern for me 'et al' to within a couple of £k per year (through to 2020 would do) then that would make his predictions around other people's posts and income slightly more credible than crud, which is the present state of affairs.

[Halb]

johnfm said:

Have you seen Ian Hislop's 'Age of the Do-Gooders'?

I have, and it is wonderful. Hislop is one of the Beeb's best presenters for that sort of thing, perhaps the best now. I know I mentioned Victorians (with an eye of them unscrupulous ruthlessness) before, but the Quakers (and others in the same vein) really were great men, giants that helped the UK into modernity.
Can't quite think of anything similar these days.

[Jockman]

Is the money involved a lot of money to a company like BP?

It's a lot to me but is it petty cash to them?

[GT03ROB]

Jockman said:

Is the money involved a lot of money to a company like BP?

It's a lot to me but is it petty cash to them?

Nope..... Revenues $226bn Total assets $262bn

[Jockman]

GT03ROB said:

Jockman said:

Is the money involved a lot of money to a company like BP?

It's a lot to me but is it petty cash to them?

Nope..... Revenues $226bn Total assets $262bn

So what % we talking here Rob to give me a bit of context?

[Halb]

Otispunkmeyer said:

In short we need more Elon Musks?

I had to go look him up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk

A modern Rowntree/Fry.
"Musk has stated that the goals of SolarCity, Tesla Motors, and SpaceX revolve around his vision to change the world and humanity. His goals include reducing global warming through sustainable energy production and consumption, and reducing the "risk of human extinction" by "making life multiplanetary" by setting up a human colony on Mars."

[GT03ROB]

Jockman said:

GT03ROB said:

Jockman said:

Is the money involved a lot of money to a company like BP?

It's a lot to me but is it petty cash to them?

Nope..... Revenues $226bn Total assets $262bn

So what % we talking here Rob to give me a bit of context?

Oh about 0.009% of revenue I think! or 7 seconds out of every day

[Halb]

RottenIcons said:

Targeting one business (no matter how big/well known) is not going to create the sea-change I desire. Boycotts have solved nothing and never will.
The solution is political, entirely political, just as it was when the likes of Cadbury (second phase capitalists) brought down the bad employers (first phase capitalists) by dint of taking to the Local/Borough Councils and stemming the rogues by law.
The third phase of phase of capitalism we are in right now is more pervasive than any before because they have taken the Banks within and the Banks killed/absorbed the Mutual Societies that were really the only challenger to that power-source.
The enemy is both huge and slippery as an oiled-up reticulated python that is slowly starving a huge swathe of our population.

So what is a possible solution? And how does one start it?

[GT03ROB]

NRS said:

GT03ROB said:

NRS said:

GT03ROB said:

In my experience, I'd tend to agree with Jockman. Most of the IOCs were fat & happy, only getting away with it because the NOCs were worse! Waste was everywhere with little concept of financial risk management.

Which part of the business have you seen?

Select/define/execute phases of upstream/downstrem onshore (predominantly) projects in the Gulf, Caspian, Indian,North & West African regions. I've seen at 1st hand Shell, BP, BG, Exxon, Marathon, Reliance, ADNOC, Aramco, PDO, QP & currently KOC.

Edited by GT03ROB on Friday 15th April 09:26

Sorry, had missed this reply before. Certainly a wider range of experience than me. My experience has more been related to well planning/ drilling wells etc and working out how much oil is there/left.

Some of the practices of some of these companies would have their shareholders weeping far more than the salaries of the CEOs