Graham Wallace(salary)

[der Berliner 3,744]

Well, you see the intent. Last day of the season ere a rather long summer break comes up. We are on the brink of an unbeaten run for the first time in 100 years. And right on cue, the BBC and their media cohorts come up with this shyte. What is dissappointing is the so many fall for it ... again.

 

We all knew those figures for weeks. The story has been done to death, yet, the same arguments are being thrown about about "club on its knees", "asking players for wage cuts" and whatnot. What is somewhat astonishing is that IMHO these figures are not even as high as one might expect them to be to cause this sort of public outcry. A neatly driven media (and I dare say "pretenders") campaign to discredit the board, using the same arguments and fears and figures time and again. And it is quite obvious that the combined fanhood lead by the SoS and UoB join in. Mission accomplished.

 

NB: I do not say that I like what he gets or that he's got bonuses written into his contract. But all you on here have lived and rown up with capitalism 20 years longer than me and wonder that chairmen and CEOs of companies get apparently top notch salaries? Whatever the state of the company is? (Sidenote: unless I am mistaken, Wallace still gets less than e.g. McCulloch and Black p.a. ... )

[Mountain Bear 0]

A CEO's bonus for a listed company would normally be based on targets for RoE (return on equity) the share price, or other key financial ratios.

 

Brahim is quite right to say we should wait to see the conditions of the bonus before we critique it, however, recent experience at Rangers was that the bar had been set so low, and on entirely inappropriate metrics, that any idiot could have achieved the criteria.

 

If the 100% figure is based on a genuinely transformational performance, which delivers very material financial and operational improvements, then I have no problem with the size of it.

 

However, if the bar HAS been set suitably high, I doubt he's going to achieve anything like 100% this year.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[forlanssister 3,114]

A CEO's bonus for a listed company would normally be based on targets for RoE (return on equity) the share price, or other key financial ratios.

 

Brahim is quite right to say we should wait to see the conditions of the bonus before we critique it, however, recent experience at Rangers was that the bar had been set so low, and on entirely inappropriate metrics, that any idiot could have achieved the criteria.

 

If the 100% figure is based on a genuinely transformational performance, which delivers very material financial and operational improvements, then I have no problem with the size of it.

 

However, if the bar HAS been set suitably high, I doubt he's going to achieve anything like 100% this year.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As I understand it the way it's structured it's basically in the gift of Chairman and Remuneration Committee but should know for definite next week.

[Mountain Bear 0]

As I understand it the way it's structured it's basically in the gift of Chairman and Remuneration Committee but should know for definite next week.

 

Thanks FS.

 

In a relatively new company I can understand them building in a bit of flexibility, but I'll be really disappointed if it's basically a subjective judgement.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the gunslinger 3,366]

If he takes it while staf are made redundant. While we are barely or not a going concern. While we constantly break the law and he's under investigation by police. While players are asked to cut wages and the manager has. He should be hounded out.

 

That said if he's even offered it someone has to go.

[Mountain Bear 0]

If he takes it while staf are made redundant. While we are barely or not a going concern. While we constantly break the law and he's under investigation by police. While players are asked to cut wages and the manager has. He should be hounded out.

 

That said if he's even offered it someone has to go.

 

Not sure about all of that GS.

 

Wage cuts and redundancies should have happened under administration but didn't.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Not sure about all of that GS.

 

Wage cuts and redundancies should have happened under administration but didn't.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have no issue with redundancy. But absolutely not hand in hand with bonuses.

[Mountain Bear 0]

I have no issue with redundancy. But absolutely not hand in hand with bonuses.

 

If the redundancies were only needed to pay for the bonus, then I'd agree with you.

 

Restructures and redundancies are part and parcel of turning a business around though.

 

I'm not arguing that Wallace deserves one, just that redundancies shouldn't preclude a CEO from getting a bonus if the business is genuinely improved as a result.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[the gunslinger 3,366]

If the redundancies were only needed to pay for the bonus, then I'd agree with you.

 

Restructures and redundancies are part and parcel of turning a business around though.

 

I'm not arguing that Wallace deserves one, just that redundancies shouldn't preclude a CEO from getting a bonus if the business is genuinely improved as a result.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

i think in a family club it actually should. this isn't international banking.

 

but we are making redundancies because we have shrunk as a business. it is impossible to justify this imho.

[Mountain Bear 0]

i think in a family club it actually should. this isn't international banking.

 

but we are making redundancies because we have shrunk as a business. it is impossible to justify this imho.

 

That's the type of tension you get when a family club is listed on a stock exchange I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk