Swampster Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I'll bet he's really upset about that, while he's pocketing the umpteen hundreds of thousands of pounds a year for doing sweet FA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curriechick Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Hmmm. I'll happily be a Mr for the rest of my life in exchange for his pension. I am female and I would.........:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grafikhaus74 Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 So who's idea was that, Thatcher? Er, not quite. It was the criminally inept Gordon Brown who knighted him for Services to the Scottish Mafia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 So who's idea was that, Thatcher? No, Blair(PM) and Brown(Chancellor). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 tbh the episode shows up two, or possibly three things. Firstly how stupid the honours system is. He could have been the most morally corrupt person on the planet and the system would still have honoured him just for being a top banker. In the same way that top civil servants automatically gain a title, no matter how inept they turn out to be (Dame Strathie). Secondly the cronyism that means both jobs for the boys and titles for the boys. Politicians of all persuasions will hand out baubles to their chums. Thirdly....Sir Fred was part of a board. He was part of an organisation. He personally wasn't to blame, it was the culture of risk and bonus - a culture that continues today and a culture that the politicians blather about ending but are either unwilling, or unable to do anything serious about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 He made a series of acquisitions turning RBS from a small bit-part player into one of the largest banks in the world. Everyone thought it was a brilliant strategy, and everyone wanted to pile as much money in as possible, until one of the acquisitions went wrong and bankrupted the company, at which point everyone has decided that he personally is to blame for the whole fiasco. I believe it was Fred Goodwin's personal insistence that due diligence on ABN-AMRO, amounted to 'two lever-arch files and a CD ROM' for a disastrous £49billion deal. Oh, and lets not forget how much he leveraged RBS to aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I believe it was Fred Goodwin's personal insistence that due diligence on ABN-AMRO, amounted to 'two lever-arch files and a CD ROM' for a disastrous £49billion deal. Oh, and lets not forget how much he leveraged RBS to aswell. It may have been his personal insistence but a properly constituted board of directors, with non-executive directors to oversee, should have questioned him and diligently examined his plans before signing off on them. That is after all what they are paid £800,000 a year for a 2 day week for. Or what it's more commonly known as "money for old rope". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 31, 2012 Author Share Posted January 31, 2012 It may have been his personal insistence but a properly constituted board of directors, with non-executive directors to oversee, should have questioned him and diligently examined his plans before signing off on them. That is after all what they are paid £800,000 a year for a 2 day week for. Or what it's more commonly known as "money for old rope". True enough, but with a bullying personality like Goodwin in charge the composition of the board inevitably tends towards cronies and yes men. He was a ruthless CEO who fired anyone who crossed him and let his own ego run riot on the banks balance sheet with his endless aquisitions. If ever a CEO bore genuine personal responsibility for what happened to their company it's him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Firstly, one word:- "Yaaay!" why did they knight him in the first place? "Services to banking". Secondly:- I had to be careful how I read that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 It does my heart good to see this. He still has the money, fair enough. But the people he admires and envies have kicked him in the face. Non of them come out of it with any better standing. They are all reduced by it. The Queen espescially has been humiliated in her big year. Being told by an unelected PM to remove an honour she gave on the advice of another unelected PM, to a good for nothing incompetent, does not make her look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.