At last Shareholders speak-Barclays Bank
Discussion
crankedup said:
Its plain that you use the same tactic whenever you are unable to justify the content of your posts, most of my points have been ignored I notice. You dont work in the city, not surprised in all honesty. You constantly talk of how understanding business and business activity works, but you fail to understand that those old business models are now defunct with just the old die hards clinging on to drain the very most possible from shareholders businesses. Most people are sick to the back teeth of corporate largesse at shareholders expense. I dont give a monkeys about how brilliant or otherwise these top people are I simply want shareholders to have binding votes so that we can begin to bring back pay levels to real world levels. You have not even offered any sensible comments regarding society unrest over the issues.
I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.
Pray tell what tactic is that then? I am just using fact and logic which seems to be something you are wholly & totally incapable of even understanding let alone doing. I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.
Shareholders do and always have had a vote and they are free to exercise that vote, also I fully understand how corporate structures operate and how a modern business framework needs to function and I have the track record to prove as such thank you.
I believe I did offer an opinion somewhat couched in less than flattering terms but not quite as direct as Soovy I grant you, about societies position on the subject. Which was essentially that mix in varied circles and it has been my experience that those that seem to hold the opinion you do have that opinion given to them and accepted by them from popular media and other outlets. They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc. These are the kind of folks who like to miss use terminology to dramatise a point - you know what I mean saying something is 'publicly owned' to try and incite some sort of vitriolic outburst of sympathy and uprising!
Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 20:59
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Soovy said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
crankedup said:
Eh! You again do not seem to grasp the problems associated with your beliefs which seem to be stuck in the past two decades. Its not simply a matter of 17m a year in pay, its the whole reward ethos and process that is out of control.
You don't seem to grasp the fact that the reason you deem it to be out of control is because you're gut feeling tells y u that £17m a year is obscene. When others are struggling to live this bloke is picking up a huge sum. That's it. No economic arguement, just one based on your little world.But Tom Cruise gets $25m for 12 weeks work on 1 movie. Messi picked up €35m last year for kicking a ball around. If Bob Diamond gets £17m, good on him I say. I wish I was on £17m a year. The reason I'm not is because I haven't done anything to deserve it. Once you come to terms with your own failings, you're far more able to accept other people's success without bitterness and envy.
You should give it a try. Just look in the mirror and say "I am a hopeless failure." Believe me, it's easy.
Diamond is worth every penny of the package he gets. He delivers multiples of this in profit and value.
Contrast, if you will, with a thug footballer who earns 30m for kicking a piece of pigskin around a field.
Go and b1tch about the footballer, not Bob.
Life has never been fair, it isn't fair now, and it never will be. There will always be winners.
And losers.
Also there is little or no difference between Barclays and Manchester United they are both publicly traded private limited companies yet you seem to not want to address this why is that?
Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 20:38
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Its plain that you use the same tactic whenever you are unable to justify the content of your posts, most of my points have been ignored I notice. You dont work in the city, not surprised in all honesty. You constantly talk of how understanding business and business activity works, but you fail to understand that those old business models are now defunct with just the old die hards clinging on to drain the very most possible from shareholders businesses. Most people are sick to the back teeth of corporate largesse at shareholders expense. I dont give a monkeys about how brilliant or otherwise these top people are I simply want shareholders to have binding votes so that we can begin to bring back pay levels to real world levels. You have not even offered any sensible comments regarding society unrest over the issues.
I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.
Pray tell what tactic is that then? I am just using fact and logic which seems to be something you are wholly totally & incapable of even understanding let alone doing. I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.
Shareholders do and always have had a vote and they are free to exercise that vote, also I fully understand how corporate structures operate and how a modern business framework needs to function and I have the track record to prove as such thank you.
I believe I did offer an opinion somewhat couched in less than flattering terms but not quite as direct as Soovy I grant you, about societies position on the subject. Which was essentially that mix in varied circles and it has been my experience that those that seem to hold the opinion you do have that opinion given to them and accepted by them from popular media and other outlets. They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc. These are the kind of folks who like to miss use terminology to dramatise a point - you know what I mean saying something is 'publicly owned' to try and incite some sort of vitriolic outburst of sympathy and uprising!
Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 20:59
crankedup said:
Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
here is a simple question.
Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
Board members hired on contracts with performance targets. Remuneration board agrees pay after assessment of performance and decide amount.
Is it right to then renege on that contract? share holders votes are not binding because the board already has authority to negotiate contracts of senior employees. So can that contract be reneged on?
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Its plain that you use the same tactic whenever you are unable to justify the content of your posts, most of my points have been ignored I notice. You dont work in the city, not surprised in all honesty. You constantly talk of how understanding business and business activity works, but you fail to understand that those old business models are now defunct with just the old die hards clinging on to drain the very most possible from shareholders businesses. Most people are sick to the back teeth of corporate largesse at shareholders expense. I dont give a monkeys about how brilliant or otherwise these top people are I simply want shareholders to have binding votes so that we can begin to bring back pay levels to real world levels. You have not even offered any sensible comments regarding society unrest over the issues.
I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.
Pray tell what tactic is that then? I am just using fact and logic which seems to be something you are wholly totally & incapable of even understanding let alone doing. I look forward to investment banking having to stand alone to sink or swim with those that own the banks having the rights to decide on matters of management and reward.
Shareholders do and always have had a vote and they are free to exercise that vote, also I fully understand how corporate structures operate and how a modern business framework needs to function and I have the track record to prove as such thank you.
I believe I did offer an opinion somewhat couched in less than flattering terms but not quite as direct as Soovy I grant you, about societies position on the subject. Which was essentially that mix in varied circles and it has been my experience that those that seem to hold the opinion you do have that opinion given to them and accepted by them from popular media and other outlets. They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc. These are the kind of folks who like to miss use terminology to dramatise a point - you know what I mean saying something is 'publicly owned' to try and incite some sort of vitriolic outburst of sympathy and uprising!
Edited by heppers75 on Monday 30th April 20:59
heppers75 said:
They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc.
Just the sort of pretentious twaddle I would expect from someone trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on.My bet was you'd land on "about right" on the remuneration question, simply because it avoids forming any significant opinion of your own.
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers75 said:
They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc.
Just the sort of pretentious twaddle I would expect from someone trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on.My bet was you'd land on "about right" on the remuneration question, simply because it avoids forming any significant opinion of your own.
ETA - On re-reading I also note you chose to respond to a post on a question you asked me with my reply to someone else's post as opposed to the one I gave to the actual question you asked. Which actually very much re-enforces my argument that folks like yourself just can't cope and simply grasp at straws and cling to vitriol and others writings to justify your position. As opposed to address actual answers to the questions you ask. Also you accuse me of trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on yet both you and crankedup were the ones using obviously incorrect facts calling these companies 'publicly owned' in a very clear way to try and incite some sort of view that they are 'public property'. However I notice you both have moved on very rapidly from that not addressed the fact you were currently I believe the only ones using incorrect information and you accuse others of being the ones lacking in knowledge mmmm
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 07:25
heppers75 said:
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.
I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
Nail/head.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
The problem here is that some are just furious that others can earn millions a year. Doesn't matter what they do. They would complain if someone who simultaneously found a cure for cancer, aids and brought peace to the Middle East was given a multi million bonus.
Because as Martin84 (that's his IQ, not his year of birth I'm guessing) said about 8 pages ago "nobodies (sic) worth £2M a year, we've already established that."
I just wish people would be more honest about it. I'd have a modicum of respect for someone that came on and said "it's just not fair that someone can earn 100 times what I earn, just because I'm a failure and they're a success."
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I just wish people would be more honest about it. I'd have a modicum of respect for someone that came on and said "it's just not fair that someone can earn 100 times what I earn, just because I'm a failure and they're a success."
Add to that multi-millionaire pay to them, is their pay to a kid in Thailand or China.I don't see them falling on their swords over their own 'obscene' incomes
crankedup said:
Taking out the waffle, the fact is shareholders voting rights are non binding and the sooner this changes the better.
And that, sportsfans, is the level of (no) knowledge we are dealing with here.
Crankedup and his chums think that
(i) listed companies are publicly owned; and
(ii) that shareholders' votes are not binding
I suggest you buy this, for a start.
In the meantime I've got some chunky long positions on BARC today. When I cash in I'll be sure to have a drink from you, Cranky.
Get a grip.
heppers75 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers75 said:
They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc.
Just the sort of pretentious twaddle I would expect from someone trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on.My bet was you'd land on "about right" on the remuneration question, simply because it avoids forming any significant opinion of your own.
ETA - On re-reading I also note you chose to respond to a post on a question you asked me with my reply to someone else's post as opposed to the one I gave to the actual question you asked. Which actually very much re-enforces my argument that folks like yourself just can't cope and simply grasp at straws and cling to vitriol and others writings to justify your position. As opposed to address actual answers to the questions you ask. Also you accuse me of trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on yet both you and crankedup were the ones using obviously incorrect facts calling these companies 'publicly owned' in a very clear way to try and incite some sort of view that they are 'public property'. However I notice you both have moved on very rapidly from that not addressed the fact you were currently I believe the only ones using incorrect information and you accuse others of being the ones lacking in knowledge mmmm
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 07:25
He will be back and usually posts several all in one go about opinion and not much more.
Du1Point8 said:
........the guy has already made his money and taken early retirement
Fair point. One suspects that perhaps his pension has gone tits up and he's a sore loser. He could always sell one of his terribly capitalist vintage car collection I suppose.
Edited by Soovy on Tuesday 1st May 10:25
Du1point8 said:
heppers75 said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
heppers75 said:
They have as a rule made little or no journey of discovery of their own volition to reach a conclusion based on their own understanding and accept the writings of someone whose job is not to provide facts but sell news. Those opinions it seems are generally created and espoused by sensationalists to garner support and sell something be it themselves or a newspaper article etc.
Just the sort of pretentious twaddle I would expect from someone trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on.My bet was you'd land on "about right" on the remuneration question, simply because it avoids forming any significant opinion of your own.
ETA - On re-reading I also note you chose to respond to a post on a question you asked me with my reply to someone else's post as opposed to the one I gave to the actual question you asked. Which actually very much re-enforces my argument that folks like yourself just can't cope and simply grasp at straws and cling to vitriol and others writings to justify your position. As opposed to address actual answers to the questions you ask. Also you accuse me of trying to sound clever but with little idea what's actually going on yet both you and crankedup were the ones using obviously incorrect facts calling these companies 'publicly owned' in a very clear way to try and incite some sort of view that they are 'public property'. However I notice you both have moved on very rapidly from that not addressed the fact you were currently I believe the only ones using incorrect information and you accuse others of being the ones lacking in knowledge mmmm
Edited by heppers75 on Tuesday 1st May 07:25
He will be back and usually posts several all in one go about opinion and not much more.
otolith said:
I'm sorry, but I think you are annoyed because, like Martin, you think that it is immoral for somebody to be so highly paid. I suspect that you would still want to cut executive pay even if it could be proven that it would be counter-productive for shareholders to do so, because I think the root of your objection is dogmatic rather than utilitarian.
You are correct in your assumption that I feel it is immoral to receive multi million pounds remuneration in certain circumstances. However, I recognise that individuals who have started business with their own money (Sir R.Branson for example) are to be applauded for their success. I have no problem with entrepreneurship. As I have said it is the self reward upon the backs of others and against interests of shareholders at the current ridicules levels I find offensive. It is clear that the rewards have reached unsustainable highs upon the back of the weak notion of having to pay top rates for the best. I am a Lib-Dem and as such my POV is not anti capitalist but one of moderate capitalism which the whole of society can benefit with.Not so far from Thatcher in some ways as she advocated prosperity through shares and home ownership! What we see now is a gap widening between the very wealthy and the poor increased by 400% over the past ten years, this is not healthy for society in general IMO.
roachcoach said:
Add to that multi-millionaire pay to them, is their pay to a kid in Thailand or China.
I don't see them falling on their swords over their own 'obscene' incomes
Great point.I don't see them falling on their swords over their own 'obscene' incomes
Anyone on over £6K a year is on disgustingly obscene money when compared to 99.999% of sub Saharan Africa. Plus they have running water in their homes, electricity, free healthcare etc etc. I'm surprised some of the people on here can live with themselves, given their obscene incomes of over £100/week.
crankedup said:
otolith said:
I'm sorry, but I think you are annoyed because, like Martin, you think that it is immoral for somebody to be so highly paid. I suspect that you would still want to cut executive pay even if it could be proven that it would be counter-productive for shareholders to do so, because I think the root of your objection is dogmatic rather than utilitarian.
You are correct in your assumption that I feel it is immoral to receive multi million pounds remuneration in certain circumstances. However, I recognise that individuals who have started business with their own money (Sir R.Branson for example) are to be applauded for their success. I have no problem with entrepreneurship. As I have said it is the self reward upon the backs of others and against interests of shareholders at the current ridicules levels I find offensive. It is clear that the rewards have reached unsustainable highs upon the back of the weak notion of having to pay top rates for the best. I am a Lib-Dem and as such my POV is not anti capitalist but one of moderate capitalism which the whole of society can benefit with.Not so far from Thatcher in some ways as she advocated prosperity through shares and home ownership! What we see now is a gap widening between the very wealthy and the poor increased by 400% over the past ten years, this is not healthy for society in general IMO.
If that is the case what is this mythical threshold as an anual income figure?
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
crankedup said:
heppers75 said:
crankedup said:
Nobody is worth, whatever that means, the multi millions of pounds that they decide they are worthy of paying themselves and the sooner it stops the better. Over to you.
See that is just the crux of the issue, you simply have a personal and fundamental problem with someone being paid what you consider to be an obscene amount of money.I will ask a simple question does anyone who is a mere employee of any company and never put a penny of their own money in just 'got a job' ever under any circumstances worth the sort of money we are talking about?
Without going into a repost of a previous post, I believe the revolt has come about because there is simply a majority of people in this fair nation of ours that are so easily led by (no personal offence intended) people like yourself whom have a simple moral objection to the amount of money, have no real understanding of the complexities of the corporate world and the job it entails and have no desire to find that out therefore become influenced by the media and people again like yourself who bang the 'its wrong, its our money' drum using emotive miss placed terminology to gouge out a moral standpoint.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff