God I love the banks and the law

thebaz

Someone here felt the legal system were getting unfairly slurred - yet the AIB had to be taken over by the state , so why is Mr Moy and his mates getting there bonuses - feck em - and do something useful with the money rather than lining the pockets of the legal and banking brigade

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1104/1224282633790.html

policarp

God I love "The Banks of the Lee".

Saila

really? I love them they're great, fantastic job they are doing all together.

scientific1982

Hang him, hes a witch.

Pherekydes

thebaz wrote: »

Someone here felt the legal system were getting unfairly slurred - yet the AIB had to be taken over by the state , so why is Mr Moy and his mates getting there bonuses - feck em - and do something useful with the money rather than lining the pockets of the legal and banking brigade

Breaching contract in this case would amount to theft.

It's about time the bonuses were paid, too. The workers fulfilled their part of the contract but AIB tried to get out of theirs. Then they thought it would be a good idea to waste more money by trying to defend them in court. They were never going to win. They had already lost a similar case in the USA.

thebaz

Pherekydes wrote: »

Breaching contract in this case would amount to theft.

It's about time the bonuses were paid, too. The workers fulfilled their part of the contract but AIB tried to get out of theirs. Then they thought it would be a good idea to waste more money by trying to defend them in court. They were never going to win. They had already lost a similar case in the USA.

the AIB is broke , and if it was any other business it would have gone to the wall - circumstances have changed they are in new ownership - no bonus should be paid when there is so much pain and hardship in the country , and much more deserving cases

Rabble Rabble

Pherekydes wrote: »

Breaching contract in this case would amount to theft.

It's about time the bonuses were paid, too. The workers fulfilled their part of the contract but AIB tried to get out of theirs. Then they thought it would be a good idea to waste more money by trying to defend them in court. They were never going to win. They had already lost a similar case in the USA.

What is he getting a bonus for? Why is a bonus obligatory. Why are the people whose incometence caused AIB's and our problems, and had to be bailed out at all getting a "bonus" at all?

syklops

Christ if I read one more thread complaining about banks Im going to scream.

IITYWYBMAD

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

What is he getting a bonus for? Why is a bonus obligatory. Why are the people whose incometence caused AIB's and our problems, and had to be bailed out at all getting a "bonus" at all?

He's a trader. It would be built into his contract. He (more than likely) made a packet for AIB. It's not his fault AIB are under capitalised. He deserves it, and the courts agree.

Sykk

This is new and fresh

pablo_escobar

Don't begrudge the poor banker a bonus.

It's hard work busting banks and whole economies with predatory lending and fraudulent financial schemes.

As an Irish person, you should feel ashamed of yourself for even the thought of complaining.

They're entitled to that bonus. :rolleyes:

Rabble Rabble

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

He's a trader. It would be built into his contract. He (more than likely) made a packet for AIB. It's not his fault AIB are under capitalised. He deserves it, and the courts agree.

Did he make a packet? Did all the traders make a packet? Were they all successful the year that the Government had to step in to rescue the company they made a packet for?

ghostdancer

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

What is he getting a bonus for? Why is a bonus obligatory. Why are the people whose incometence caused AIB's and our problems, and had to be bailed out at all getting a "bonus" at all?

christ. :rolleyes:

he's entitiled to a bonus as part of a contract if he meets certain requirements/targets.

presumably he met those targets, hence he's taking the case, as AIB have broken the terms of the contract.

IITYWYBMAD

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Did he make a packet? Did all the traders make a packet? Were they all successful the year that the Government had to step in to rescue the company they made a packet for?

Dunno tbh...but the "issue" with the banks is nothing got to do with traders. He has a contract. It's not being honored, he sued, and won. What would you do?

Rabble Rabble

ghostdancer wrote: »

christ. :rolleyes:

he's entitiled to a bonus as part of a contract if he meets certain requirements/targets.

presumably he met those targets, hence he's taking the case, as AIB have broken the terms of the contract.

So who lost money for AIB? Is his bonus dependent on him not losing 1-2 billion a year. AIB lost money that year, and had to be rescued. Ignoring the fact that the monkey traders should like all normal employees get a normal wage for doing their job - i.e. making money in trade - and thus get no bonuses for that - an activity which could be done by a 2 year old in a good market ; it is not even clear that they can even do their job because the company he was making money for had to be rescued by the TaxPayer. It is therefore not a viable entity. Wind it up. Put it in receivership, guarantee the deposits. But give this muppet nothing.

pablo_escobar

Did the tax payer sign the contract? who do you think will be paying the bonus? amazed here with the level of stupidity in this country..you couldn't make it up.

thebaz

ghostdancer wrote: »

christ. :rolleyes:

he's entitiled to a bonus as part of a contract if he meets certain requirements/targets.

presumably he met those targets, hence he's taking the case, as AIB have broken the terms of the contract.

the contract should mean feck all, if the company has gone to the wall - there is a new owner , not a penny should be paid by the new owners to a company that gambled or traded and lost - the bonuses should match the financial profitability - that was less than nill - so maybe they should count themselves lucky the state doesnt sue them, for poor performance

Snakeblood

syklops wrote: »

Christ if I read one more thread complaining about banks Im going to scream.

I'll post one in a minute. GET READY.

humanji

Can't understand the complaints here. There was a contract. It was fulfilled. The guy is due his payment. The courts agree. AIB even agree. So he should get his money.

If you've a problem with the terms of the contract, get you time-machine out and go back and change them.

thebaz

humanji wrote: »

Can't understand the complaints here. There was a contract. It was fulfilled. The guy is due his payment. The courts agree. AIB even agree. So he should get his money.

If you've a problem with the terms of the contract, get you time-machine out and go back and change them.

ok , the AIB as it was , is no longer , it went bust due to poor performance , it is now under new ownership , me and you .
Why should we pay out bonuses for poor performance , for an institution that went to the wall - oh maybe its more of the old school cosy cartel - the banks, stockbroker/traders, developers, legal eagles , and certain politicians .

ps this is not a bonus for an ordinary bank staff - this is a trader who was trying to make the bank money , and along with the rest failed miserably

Pherekydes

thebaz wrote: »

the AIB is broke , and if it was any other business it would have gone to the wall - circumstances have changed they are in new ownership - no bonus should be paid when there is so much pain and hardship in the country , and much more deserving cases

The guy worked for AIB Capital Markets. AIBCM is a subsidiary of AIB, a very profitable one. He met the terms of his contract. They are obliged under law to meet theirs. Traders don't set bank policy. Claiming an inability to pay just won't wash. Claiming new ownership invalidates existing contracts just won't wash. What's even stupider is that they defended this in court, knowing they had already lost in the USA. There's your waste of money.

At some time in the future try this: Get someone to do a service for you (tile a bathroom, drive you home in a taxi) and then when they're finished refuse to pay. Tell them you or your house are under new management/ownership.

thebaz

Pherekydes wrote: »

The guy worked for AIB Capital Markets. AIBCM is a subsidiary of AIB, a very profitable one. He met the terms of his contract. They are obliged under law to meet theirs. Traders don't set bank policy. Claiming an inability to pay just won't wash. Claiming new ownership invalidates existing contracts just won't wash. What's even stupider is that they defended this in court, knowing they had already lost in the USA. There's your waste of money.

At some time in the future try this: Get someone to do a service for you (tile a bathroom, drive you home in a taxi) and then when they're finished refuse to pay. Tell them you or your house are under new management/ownership.

if AIB had gone to the wall , so too would all its subsidiaries , and no monies would have been paid .
your last example is happening all the time now, in particular in the building industry, thanks to the fine mess the banks have created in this state - the banks have wrecked havoc in this country and no more state money should be paid out to these over paid gamblers (fine if there institution made money) - when so many decent people and services are being crippled. If the AIB was not state owned I couldn't give a rashers what they paid out in bonuses , but it is , so different rules

Pherekydes

thebaz wrote: »

... and no more state money should be paid out to these over paid gamblers...

Did it ever occur to you that other staff are being robbed too? IT staff and others like them? You want to steal their money and flush it down the Anglo hole? Because that's where most of it's going.

If they don't pay the bonuses there isn't a contract in the state worth the paper it's written on. Law and order isn't just about Police gangs going around beating people with sticks. It's about people meeting their contractual obligations, too.

humanji

thebaz wrote: »

ok , the AIB as it was , is no longer , it went bust due to poor performance , it is now under new ownership , me and you .
Why should we pay out bonuses for poor performance , for an institution that went to the wall - oh maybe its more of the old school cosy cartel - the banks, stockbroker/traders, developers, legal eagles , and certain politicians .

ps this is not a bonus for an ordinary bank staff - this is a trader who was trying to make the bank money , and along with the rest failed miserably

It's the same company with different owners. Their debts should still be paid. And do you conclusively know his performance was bad?

Really?

Just think these employees probably have mortgages with AIB which were given to them based on their salary (inc. bonus). The employees must still repay mortgages even though the bank won't pay the salary.

Also, when the bank won't pay the bonus, the tax payer is done out of the tax payable on the bonus!!!!!!!!

Really?

scientific1982 wrote: »

Hang him, hes a witch.

Just think these employees probably have mortgages with AIB which were given to them based on their salary (inc. bonus). The employees must still repay mortgages even though the bank won't pay the salary.

Also, when the bank won't pay the bonus, the tax payer is done out of the tax payable on the bonus!!!!!!!!

Bonito

Win?

dotsman

Pherekydes wrote: »

The workers fulfilled their part of the contract but AIB tried to get out of theirs. Then they thought it would be a good idea to waste more money by trying to defend them in court. They were never going to win. They had already lost a similar case in the USA.

Try reading the article again (and if you had any knowledge of the case, that would be helpful too before you come out with this falsehood).

AIB did not try to "get out of theirs". AIB never denied the employees were entitled to their bonus. In fact, it had assured the employees in question that they would be paid. The problem was that AIB couldn't pay any bonuses on the instruction of the government, so were stuck between a rock and a hard place. AIB had tried to get the employees to wait until the current situation is resolved and then they would be paid. The employees in question felt that could take years and wanted the money now.

Pherekydes

dotsman wrote: »

Try reading the article again (and if you had any knowledge of the case, that would be helpful too before you come out with this falsehood).

AIB did not try to "get out of theirs". AIB never denied the employees were entitled to their bonus. In fact, it had assured the employees in question that they would be paid. The problem was that AIB couldn't pay any bonuses on the instruction of the government, so were stuck between a rock and a hard place. AIB had tried to get the employees to wait until the current situation is resolved and then they would be paid. The employees in question felt that could take years and wanted the money now.

It's not a falsehood. But you are correct. AIB tried to renege on the contracts on the orders of the Govt. However, the contracts were still between AIB and their employees. I'm sure you realise that if the contracts were put on the long finger they would never be paid.

dotsman

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's not a falsehood. But you are correct. AIB tried to renege on the contracts on the orders of the Govt. However, the contracts were still between AIB and their employees. I'm sure you realise that if the contracts were put on the long finger they would never be paid.

But they weren't trying to renege. Obviously, the norm would be that they be paid the following year, but AIB were happy to let the courts decide when it should be paid (thus, it's not AIB who are going against the government's wishes - they are being forced to by the courts).

With regards the long finger, I believe they would have been paid eventually, but only as soon as the current crisis has blown over and by giving the bonuses, it wouldn't result in threads like this being started!

thebaz

Pherekydes wrote: »

Did it ever occur to you that other staff are being robbed too? IT staff and others like them? You want to steal their money and flush it down the Anglo hole? Because that's where most of it's going.
ownd
If they don't pay the bonuses there isn't a contract in the state worth the paper it's written on. Law and order isn't just about Police gangs going around beating people with sticks. It's about people meeting their contractual obligations, too.

Law and order is on the brink of collapse in this state thanks to the antics of most banks , which includes AIB - My heart bleeds for these poor traders, would they share there bonuses when the times were good ?? **** no - just look at London now, where many traders and hedge funders are creaming in whopping bonuses now , all fine and well in a free economy , but when the banks are state owned , sorry tough **** -