fat cat banker with 3million

jakdelad

top banker swans off with 3 million goldenhandshake
so much for policing the banks
who says theres a recession??

123balltv

Imagine all the ordinary folk who live in super economies Germany/France etc hearing this news our tiny little Country paying big bucks like this when we're begging for help

Tora Bora

The fact that the Dail, under two administrations, has failed to pass whatever emergency legislation is required to seize all assets belonging to the top echelon bankers in ALL banks propped up by the tax payer is a total disgrace.
The picture of that assh0le, Sheedy ex boss of AIB, sitting on a bench outside Trinity college says it all. He should be doing hard labour on some off shore island, for 2 cuts of stale bread a day, plus one pint of salt water.:mad:

Mark200

Tora Bora wrote: »

The fact that the Dail, under two administrations, has failed to pass whatever emergency legislation is required to seize all assets belonging to the top echelon bankers in ALL banks propped up by the tax payer is a total disgrace.

It'd be a disgrace if such legislation was passed.

El Weirdo

A link for those who wish to be suitably disgusted but are unaware of what (I presume) the OP is on about:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0419/banks.html

The Minister for Finance has said the approach to bankers' remuneration will have to be re-examined.

Michael Noonan was referring to the pay package of €3m to AIB's former managing director Colm Doherty, who stepped down last November as a condition of the State's second bailout of the bank.

Speaking as he arrived at Government Buildings, Mr Noonan said the payment dated back to the time of the last Government.

Addressing the Dáil, Taoiseach Enda Kenny said he was absolutely appalled at the latest 'banker payment scandal'.

The payment was described as 'inappropriate' by Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney.

The Irish Times reports that Mr Doherty received the payments under a contract agreed when he was promoted in November 2009 to the role of managing director, replacing chief executive Eugene Sheehy.

The newspaper says details of the payments to Mr Doherty must appear in AIB's 2010 annual report, which is expected to be published shortly.

Mr Doherty's pay was made up of a salary, from January to November, of €432,000.

In place of a year's notice, he was paid €707,000, when his contract was terminated at the direction of former Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan.

He was also paid about €2m instead of a contribution to his pension.

The Department of Finance said it did not sign off on this payment, but that the package was what Mr Doherty was legally entitled to under the terms of his contract.

His appointment to the position of managing director in 2009 was controversial, as it went against the former Government's commitment to change at senior executive level at the banks.

Mr Doherty had been on the board of the bank since 2003 and a director at a time when the bank made bad lending decisions.

AIB said it will not be commenting on executive pay in advance of the publication of the group's annual report.

Irish Bank Officials Association General Secretary Larry Broderick has said his members cannot understand how the board of AIB and its public interest directors could have agreed the €3m package.

Mr Broderick said the package had been approved at a time when AIB was predicted to make substantial losses in the billions and thousands of job losses were forecast.

He said the bank had engaged in 'doublethink' by arguing that it was obliged to comply with Mr Doherty's contract, while breaking contracts with lower grades of bank staff in the public interest.

fontanalis

Same as it ever was.

Kess73

Tora Bora wrote: »

The fact that the Dail, under two administrations, has failed to pass whatever emergency legislation is required to seize all assets belonging to the top echelon bankers in ALL banks propped up by the tax payer is a total disgrace.
The picture of that assh0le, Sheedy ex boss of AIB, sitting on a bench outside Trinity college says it all. He should be doing hard labour on some off shore island, for 2 cuts of stale bread a day, plus one pint of salt water.:mad:

He stepped down last November, and what he recieved was at the direction of Brian Lenihan.

RichieC

It's people with that much money that run this country, they're not going to have laws past that affect themselves.

ShamoBuc

Why am I not surprised? what a country. Who in their right mind gave terms and conditions like that to anybody!!

fontanalis

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Why am I not surprised? what a country. Who in their right mind gave terms and conditions like that to anybody!!

The same type of people that threw hundreds of millions at "property developers".

ejmaztec

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Why am I not surprised? what a country. Who in their right mind gave terms and conditions like that to anybody!!

Probably the same people who ignored them when they were fucking up the country.

Saila

contract is a contract

daddydick

Kess73 wrote: »

He stepped down last November, and what he recieved was at the direction of Brian Lenihan.

Not true. What he received was at the direction of his contract, his legal contract.

Whether Lehihan could/should have introduced legislation to override all these contracts is a compeltely different question..

Absolutely shocking sum of money to hand out though, disgraceful when frontline employees are receiving 20% less in their pay packet as a result of the actions of these same bankers.

orourkeda

Saila wrote: »

contract is a contract

Indeed.

He claiming what he's entitled to.

It's immoral and flies in the face of common decency but he is entitled to it

Zebra3

People voted FF and they are then surprised at this shite? :rolleyes:

Unpossible

Didn't the british create a 100% tax on these kinds of payments to bankers a year or two ago?

thebaz

orourkeda wrote: »

Indeed.

He claiming what he's entitled to.

It's immoral and flies in the face of common decency but he is entitled to it

entitled to it -??

how ? fair eneogh if a private company pays him what he is "ENTITLED" to - but the state will pay - you and me - the top management in the AIB were the ones that ruined the bank, and indeed the country - the bank is broke, bar the backing of the near bankrupt state , so i would say he is entitled to the sate pension or unemployment payment of 190 a week - no more

Mark200

thebaz wrote: »

entitled to it -??

how ?

Legally.

thebaz

Mark200 wrote: »

Legally.

well the law is an ass , if he is entitled to it - the bank is broke - it is totally wrong that he should be paid a higher amount than decent good citizens who did not wreck the country - if anything the state should sue him and fellow bankers for ruining and bankrupting the country and get the money back that way

partyatmygaff

As morally reprehensible as it is, Mark is right.

A contract is a contract. If they decided not to uphold the terms of his contract they would be in breach of contract.

thebaz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As morally reprehensible as it is, Mark is right.

A contract is a contract. If they decided not to uphold the terms of his contract they would be in breach of contract.

but the bank is bankrupt - it has no money - why should the state pay ?

YFlyer

fontanalis wrote: »

Same as it ever was.

Stop Making Sense!

partyatmygaff

thebaz wrote: »

but the bank is bankrupt - it has no money - why should the state pay ?

That's not the point... the point is that he had a contract that both he and his former employer agreed on.


If they reneged on the terms of the contract then he could quite feasibly take them to court and win and cost them even more money.

I'm not saying it's right but that's contract law...

Saila

newsflash, life isnt fair, the laws decide what can and cannot be done its as simple as that unfortunately

so you say change them then!!!!!!! well if it were that easy they would. And even if they did you cant dackdate laws so it wouldn't matter anyway probably

thebaz

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's not the point... the point is that he had a contract that both he and his former employer agreed on.


If they reneged on the terms of the contract then he could quite feasibly take them to court and win and cost them even more money.

I'm not saying it's right but that's contract law...

well as i said, why dont the state sue him and a few others from aib, anglo and the nationwide for gross misconduct - on a salary like that, they should be well capable of running a company , never mind bankrupting our state - somehow the golden circle will be saved again i think

partyatmygaff

thebaz wrote: »

well as i said, why dont the state sue him and a few others from aib, anglo and the nationwide for gross misconduct - on a salary like that, they should be well capable of running a company , never mind bankrupting our state - somehow the golden circle will be saved again i think

Well yeah they could do that. But they would still have to fulfill the terms of the contract first.

Wazdakka

Saila wrote: »

newsflash, life isnt fair, the laws decide what can and cannot be done its as simple as that unfortunately

so you say change them then!!!!!!! well if it were that easy they would. And even if they did you cant dackdate laws so it wouldn't matter anyway probably

Not to be a blind idealist here or anything...
But, shouldn't the laws of a country be whatever 51% of the population want them to be?

thebaz

Saila wrote: »

newsflash, life isnt fair, the laws decide what can and cannot be done its as simple as that unfortunately

so you say change them then!!!!!!! well if it were that easy they would. And even if they did you cant dackdate laws so it wouldn't matter anyway probably

why the hell not - for the bloody misery these clowns have landed on our country

holystungun9

Saila wrote: »

contract is a contract

Unfortunately yes, a deal is a deal is a deal, but f*ck me, it's hard to equate 'x' amount of work = a BONUS of 3 million. I suppose in any other corporation if you do a huge deal or make savings that are many many multiples of the bonus then it is just like a commission. But is that what happened???. Not my recollection but tbh I just can't think straight anymore about this countries' financial dealings, the banks' finances, property developers..etc.
Anyway ultimately, a contract is a contract, you're right.

partyatmygaff

Wazdakka wrote: »

Not to be a blind idealist here or anything...
But, shouldn't the laws of a country be whatever 51% of the population want them to be?

Yes. I'd say far more than 51% of the country would agree that legal contracts must be protected by law.

It's all or nothing. You either protect all contracts or no contracts. We can't just go by mob rule.


That's not to say they can't prosecute him for negligence and gross misconduct though.

fontanalis

Wazdakka wrote: »

Not to be a blind idealist here or anything...
But, shouldn't the laws of a country be whatever 51% of the population want them to be?

Yes, until you're part of the 49%!

melekalikimaka

god i thought we had moved on from begrudgery and demands that legally binding contracts be broken. people need to move on

fontanalis

Imagine what he would have got if the bank wasn't a zombie!

ascanbe

melekalikimaka wrote: »

god i thought we had moved on from begrudgery and demands that legally binding contracts be broken. people need to move on

'Begrudgery'. How amusing.

thebaz

melekalikimaka wrote: »

god i thought we had moved on from begrudgery and demands that legally binding contracts be broken. people need to move on

perhaps you havnt realised the country has yet to recover , or perhaps may never, from the recession ,inflicted by the greed of these same bankers - the only reason that most of these banks exist today is because of the state funds pumped into them - and it is the citizens of this state that are suffering - not the bloody fools who caused the situation , they are rewarded with obscene bonuses and payoffs - so is that begrudery ? , id call it a bloody scandal - any aib apologists obviously have some vested interest

AskMyChocolate

Mark200 wrote: »

It'd be a disgrace if such legislation was passed.

Are you comfortable there, in Peter Sutherland's bottom? Say hello to Michael Noonan for us won't you? Oh yeah and give Sarah Carey one for us too while ye decide how to ensure the longevity of the FF/FG/ Goldman Sachs pact. I have no doubt your Sindo mates will help you. Your forelock must be killing you by now is it?

Gunsfortoys

I doubt if anyone else would turn it down, you need to get to the source of the legislation and complain about it.

thebaz

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

I doubt if anyone else would turn it down, you need to get to the source of the legislation and complain about it.

of course no one would turn it down - but if the state wants to make random 3 million payments to its citizens - i would have the top end bankers, way down my list of deserving recipients

chalkitdown

melekalikimaka wrote: »

god i thought we had moved on from begrudgery and demands that legally binding contracts be broken. people need to move on

Quoting Begrudgery would suggest that you think he deserves it.

galwayrush

melekalikimaka wrote: »

god i thought we had moved on from begrudgery and demands that legally binding contracts be broken. people need to move on

I can give big money contracts to all my staff as well, but if i or my firm becomes bankrupt, who will honour the legally binding contracts?

AskMyChocolate

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As morally reprehensible as it is, Mark is right.

A contract is a contract. If they decided not to uphold the terms of his contract they would be in breach of contract.

Rubbish. It is a privileged elite, of which Mark aspires to (you can almost hear the squelch when he says "legally". Sucking Micheal McDowell's ****).

If a company is insolvent, he is no different to any other creditor. Mark200 may believe in organised crime and the rights of "the family"; but , then again you are talking about a poster who has no problem with child abuse or the coveing up of murderers, once they come from the right stock.

galwayrush

fontanalis wrote: »

Imagine what he would have got if the bank wasn't a zombie!

Indeed, how much more would he 'deserve' if he was competent?

AskMyChocolate

melekalikimaka wrote: »

god i thought we had moved on from begrudgery and demands that legally binding contracts be broken. people need to move on

Would you mind explaining to me why people shouldn't begrudge these child abusers their ill-gotten gains?

Is it because they're from Foxrock and you play golf with them? Or have you actually got an argument?

Bannasidhe

He was in post for one year-this means the contract was entered into after the state began to pump billions into the banks.What I want to know is who gave the ok for his legally binding contract in the first place?

partyatmygaff

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Rubbish. It is a privileged elite, of which Mark aspires to (you can almost hear the squelch when he says "legally". Sucking Micheal McDowell's ****).

If a company is insolvent, he is no different to any other creditor. Mark200 may believe in organised crime and the rights of "the family"; but , then again you are talking about a poster who has no problem with child abuse or the coveing up of murderers, once they come from the right stock.

Err... I don't know him at all but you wouldn't have any proof for these wild accusations would you?



Simple fact of the matter is that a legally binding contract is just that.

Mark200

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Are you comfortable there, in Peter Sutherland's bottom? Say hello to Michael Noonan for us won't you? Oh yeah and give Sarah Carey one for us too while ye decide how to ensure the longevity of the FF/FG/ Goldman Sachs pact. I have no doubt your Sindo mates will help you. Your forelock must be killing you by now is it?

I wouldn't be comfortable living in a state that illegally* confiscates personal property to pay off company losses. Company law is, as far as I know, quite clear in this area. You wouldn't allow them to all of a sudden say "my company's profits are my profits" and allow them to dip into a publicly traded company's profits whenever/however they want, so we shouldn't be saying "your company's losses are your losses".


* - of course, to get around the fact that it's illegal they could just change the law. But still.

Mark200

thebaz wrote: »

if anything the state should sue him and fellow bankers for ruining and bankrupting the country and get the money back that way

I'd be quite confident in saying it's not illegal for your company/a company you work in to make a loss.

Unless you can tell me what laws were broken by him, of course?

weldoninhio

partyatmygaff wrote: »

As morally reprehensible as it is, Mark is right.

A contract is a contract. If they decided not to uphold the terms of his contract they would be in breach of contract.

This is pure and utter NONSENSE, I work in a call centre for An Irish Bank, the terms of my contract state that my contract is €25,000, with 22,500 split up and paid monthly and the other 10% to be given 5% at a time at 6 monthly interval dependant on performance.

Dec 2009 we were told our Xmas payment was signed off etc, then 3 weeks before payday we were told it had been stopped because the bank could not afford to pay us. June 2010 we were told bank could not afford it. Same in Dec 2010.

In Dec 2010 after advice from LRC, bank said that they would relent and pay us what we were owed from Dec 2009. 1 week before we were due to get paid, the capital markets bonus scandal hit, the bank i work for used this to whitewash us and pull the payment telling us that the government did not realise that this was part of our wages and not a bonus, and they had blocked them from paying us. In Jan 2010 Brian Lenihan came out and said that the block was on bonuses to capital markets and that the call centre staff should not have been affected, we still have not received the wages we are owed from Dec 2009, June 2010, Dec 2010 and we've no even hope of getting the wage payment we are due in June 2011.

Its still working its way through the courts, the max payment anyone would get through this would be about E1000 after tax. It is in our contract, but this does not matter one little bit.

thebaz

Mark200 wrote: »

I'd be quite confident in saying it's not illegal for your company/a company you work in to make a loss.

Unless you can tell me what laws were broken by him, of course?

of course it is not illegal - but in most instances , if the company i work for goes broke , any such contact for payment of bonuses and golden handshakes would be pretty worthless - why should the banks be any different ?

in particular given the misery they have inflicted on so many of the citizens of the state , who are then forced to actually pay out these obscene bonuses and payments - why are the banks treated so differently to other industries ? - bonuses for non performance , to add salt to the wound

partyatmygaff

weldoninhio wrote: »

This is pure and utter NONSENSE, I work in a call centre for An Irish Bank, the terms of my contract state that my contract is €25,000, with 22,500 split up and paid monthly and the other 10% to be given 5% at a time at 6 monthly interval dependant on performance.

Dec 2009 we were told our Xmas payment was signed off etc, then 3 weeks before payday we were told it had been stopped because the bank could not afford to pay us. June 2010 we were told bank could not afford it. Same in Dec 2010.

In Dec 2010 after advice from LRC, bank said that they would relent and pay us what we were owed from Dec 2009. 1 week before we were due to get paid, the capital markets bonus scandal hit, the bank i work for used this to whitewash us and pull the payment telling us that the government did not realise that this was part of our wages and not a bonus, and they had blocked them from paying us. In Jan 2010 Brian Lenihan came out and said that the block was on bonuses to capital markets and that the call centre staff should not have been affected, we still have not received the wages we are owed from Dec 2009, June 2010, Dec 2010 and we've no even hope of getting the wage payment we are due in June 2011.

Its still working its way through the courts, the max payment anyone would get through this would be about E1000 after tax. It is in our contract, but this does not matter one little bit.

Regardless of your own personal experiences the law is still quite clear. Contracts like these are legally binding. If the bank reneged on the contract terms he would have taken them to court and quite possibly won. It would have only resulted in the bank paying not only the €3 Million but legal fees as well.

Mark200

thebaz wrote: »

of course it is not illegal - but in most instances , if the company i work for goes broke , any such contact for payment of bonuses and golden handshakes would be pretty worthless - why should the banks be any different ?

in particular given the misery they have inflicted on so many of the citizens of the state , who are then forced to actually pay out these obscene bonuses and payments - why are the banks treated so differently to other industries ? - bonuses for non performance , to add salt to the wound

Well they're not broke, yet. I mean technically they are, but if they're going to stop paying the high earners by saying "we can't afford it", then they'll have to stop paying the low earners too. I don't think they can pick and choose which employees they're going to stop paying due to their financial situation.