Hairyloon Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What a load of bobbar! Did the taxpayer choose to give her that bonus? No. Looking at it from the company's point of view that bonus was richly deserved: she has clearly guided the company through a rough patch, securing them contracts and making them pot loads of cash despite the hard times and the string of failures. Looking at it from the taxpayers point of view, the bonus is largely irrelevant. The taxpayer's contract is with the company. The company has presumably provided a service and been paid a fee in accordance with that contract. What they do with those fees once they have been paid is up to them. If they choose to give the MD a massive bonus and emphasise exactly how bad a deal we had, then that is surely their choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Did the taxpayer choose to give her that bonus? No. Looking at it from the company's point of view that bonus was richly deserved: she has clearly guided the company through a rough patch, securing them contracts and making them pot loads of cash despite the hard times and the string of failures. Looking at it from the taxpayers point of view, the bonus is largely irrelevant. The taxpayer's contract is with the company. The company has presumably provided a service and been paid a fee in accordance with that contract. What they do with those fees once they have been paid is up to them. If they choose to give the MD a massive bonus and emphasise exactly how bad a deal we had, then that is surely their choice. It's still a load of bobbar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It's still a load of bobbar. ....with bells on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Did the taxpayer choose to give her that bonus? No. Looking at it from the company's point of view that bonus was richly deserved: she has clearly guided the company through a rough patch, securing them contracts and making them pot loads of cash despite the hard times and the string of failures. Looking at it from the taxpayers point of view, the bonus is largely irrelevant. The taxpayer's contract is with the company. The company has presumably provided a service and been paid a fee in accordance with that contract. What they do with those fees once they have been paid is up to them. If they choose to give the MD a massive bonus and emphasise exactly how bad a deal we had, then that is surely their choice. Yes, but if you are the majority shareholder, and you award yourself a huge bonus, isn't it more 'tax efficient' than 'earning' it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Yes, but if you are the majority shareholder, and you award yourself a huge bonus, isn't it more 'tax efficient' than 'earning' it? Is that the relevant question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Is that the relevant question? Fair enough, you might like this one better.... If A4E have not delivered what they said they would for the money, shouldn't we get a refund? BTW, I know a few tax payers who don't think the 8 M bonus is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 If A4E have not delivered what they said they would for the money, shouldn't we get a refund? That would depend on the terms of the contract, so probably not. So who was it that negotiated that contract on our behalf and why did they get us such a lousy deal? BTW, I know a few tax payers who don't think the 8 M bonus is irrelevant. OK, it was poor choice of words. The point is that it is doesn't make any difference to how much the deal cost us. Does anyone have any verified figures for how much that is, how many job-seekers they've processed and how many they have actually helped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Did the taxpayer choose to give her that bonus? No. Looking at it from the company's point of view that bonus was richly deserved: she has clearly guided the company through a rough patch, securing them contracts and making them pot loads of cash despite the hard times and the string of failures. Looking at it from the taxpayers point of view, the bonus is largely irrelevant. The taxpayer's contract is with the company. The company has presumably provided a service and been paid a fee in accordance with that contract. What they do with those fees once they have been paid is up to them. If they choose to give the MD a massive bonus and emphasise exactly how bad a deal we had, then that is surely their choice. That's the clinical view, the one no doubt taken by the A4E board in arriving at their decision. The clinical view does not however take into account a number of factors. Is it morally right to behave in that way given the current economic climate? Probably not and it is being rightly questioned - the criticism initially came from the cross-party Public Accounts Committee remember. Harrison is also the families adviser to David Cameron and at a time when he is urging pay restraint in British boardrooms this huge payout looks a little bit at odds with that. Finally, A4E has shot itself in the foot in a very Ratner-esque way. Never underestimate the kind of reputational damage this kind of stunt can result in. It also opens up A4E up to enormous public scrutiny of its performance - the competing providers will be ****-a-hoop and it won't be enough for A4E to argue that they their board members deserve massive rewards because they aren't failing as badly as other providers. So yes while you can take a clinical view of this, from a more subjective business perpective the A4E board will come to realise they have made a massive error. This kind of stain will not wash off easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Fair enough, you might like this one better.... If A4E have not delivered what they said they would for the money, shouldn't we get a refund? BTW, I know a few tax payers who don't think the 8 M bonus is irrelevant. It's an interesting question. Contracturally A4E are probably getting everything they should. There is probably no provision or mechansim for them to return previously paid fees, except perhaps those paid in error which is standard business practice anyway. And that's another point. Which Labour baffoons were in charge when the original contracts were drawn up? Which coalition baffoons are in charge now and allowing it all to continue? At the end of the day it looks like A4E are making tens of millions off the back of risk-free contracts weighted in their favour and against the British taxpayer. The other providers are probably enjoying the fruits of similar contracts too. Somebody has to be accountable for the mistakes in drawing up them contacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Finally, A4E has shot itself in the foot in a very Ratner-esque way. Never underestimate the kind of reputational damage this kind of stunt can result in. It also opens up A4E up to enormous public scrutiny of its performance... That was the point I was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.