Oh look.. Gordon Brown plays the blame game again..

Morgoth · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:20

csmager said:
The money in this pension fund isn't entirely from RBS - it will also be made up of money from pension funds he's paid into/had paid into from previous employment - as he states in his letter that Robert Peston's published.

Thanks for highlighting the letter, I missed that. I agree that it would be unfair to try to take away the man's pension when a good chunk of it was earnt before he joined the bank.

antijoke · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:21

with this contract for this guys super pension, could it not now be seen as null and void now as the government have majority share holder stakes in RBS?

Or am I a little wide of the mark? (probably this).

Vixen · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:26

anticonscience said:
with this contract for this guys super pension, could it not now be seen as null and void now as the government have majority share holder stakes in RBS?

Or am I a little wide of the mark? (probably this).

The government had agreed to the pension when he left in October, they've only just decided that it's unfair.

csmager · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:28

anticonscience said:
with this contract for this guys super pension, could it not now be seen as null and void now as the government have majority share holder stakes in RBS?

Or am I a little wide of the mark? (probably this).

RBS decided it, RBS paid it, the Government okayed it - it's now in a separate fund, so I doubt it's within the bank's control to take it back.

antijoke · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:31

Ahhhh I see, thanks for clearing it all up. How much is the actual amount he is owed if some of it was made up from contributions he put in himself?

RDM · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:37

csmager said:
RBS decided it, RBS paid it, the Government okayed it - it's now in a separate fund, so I doubt it's within the bank's control to take it back.

But surely we are all happy for the government to be able to raid private pension schemes as and when they see fit? Especially for such a good purpose?

Greebo · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:39

anticonscience said:
Ahhhh I see, thanks for clearing it all up. How much is the actual amount he is owed if some of it was made up from contributions he put in himself?

I think RBS had to put £8m into into it onto top of the £8m already there so basically half.

Mr Jack · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:40

Does our Prime Minister have nothing better to do than chase after pensioners?

What a pathetic exercise in distraction.

Sankari · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:43

"Chase after pensioners"?

I think you mean "50 year old self-funded millionaire retiree".

Barks · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:44

Mr Cable said Sir Fred should receive £27,000 a year - the amount he would have received under the pension protection scheme if RBS had gone bankrupt, which would have happened if it had not been bailed-out by taxpayers.

This point alone is bold enough for me to take the Government's side.

RDM · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:45

Evangelion said:
"Chase after pensioners"?

I think you mean "50 year old self-funded millionaire retiree".

Not sure if it would be such a big issue if he was "self-funded".

RDM · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:47

scott212 said:
This point alone is bold enough for me to take the Government's side.

Mr Cable is probably talking rubbish to score political points though. The likelyhood is that Mr Evil Banker had a seperate scheme that RBS paid in to (as most high level executives do) so even if RBS had gone bust it would still have been safe.

Greebo · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:48

RDM said:
Mr Cable is probably talking rubbish to score political points though. The likelyhood is that Mr Evil Banker had a seperate scheme that RBS paid in to (as most high level executives do) so even if RBS had gone bust it would still have been safe.

Quoted for truth. It was an independant seperate scheme and not linked to the bank.

scorza · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:53

RDM said:
I think we really do need to set the precident that the government can override contract law when it feels like it. I am sure they would only ever use it in the best interests of the people as a whole.

Plenty of laws override contract law - always have done and always will do.

Goodwin (and any other executive) should not be rewarded for failure - that is the key precedent that must be set here.

starfighter · 27 Feb 2009 at 14:53

Agree with Brown on this one. A new owner of the company and thus new rules should be allowed seeing as the last person obviously failed it seems radical changes are needed.

Greebo · 27 Feb 2009 at 15:01

scorza said:
Plenty of laws override contract law - always have done and always will do.

Goodwin (and any other executive) should not be rewarded for failure - that is the key precedent that must be set here.

AGreed but as already said, it wasn't written into his contract. It was discretionary so the bank could have elected to give him nothing.

When he was in charge and made record profits he would have got good bonues to reward him then. On been forced out under a cloud and given an optional £8m is beyond me.

Morally he should give it back. Legally he has to do nothing.

Sankari · 27 Feb 2009 at 15:02

RDM said:
I think we really do need to set the precident that the government can override contract law when it feels like it. I am sure they would only ever use it in the best interests of the people as a whole.

Erm, no.

The government has said that the reason they didn't intervene before was because they believed that the pension was contractually obligated. In other words, their refusal to was based upon a reluctance to override contract law.

Now that we know the pension isn't protected by contractual obligation, it is clear that the government would not be overriding contract law if they forced him to accept a lower sum.

RDM · 27 Feb 2009 at 15:02

scorza said:
Plenty of laws override contract law - always have done and always will do.

We aren't really talking about a law here though are we? We are talking about an already agreed and legal arrangement being recinded not for any legal reasons but because the public found out about it and it makes the government look silly. I hate the idea that the government feel that they should be able to ride roughshod over the law because of public opinion, we start moving to that "tyranny of the majority" situation.

scorza said:
Goodwin (and any other executive) should not be rewarded for failure - that is the key precedent that must be set here.

Yes, the precedent being that anything agreed with a company that then gets taken over by the government is null and void and the government can then feel free to reduce or remove your pension. Not really something I like the idea of. Not to mention that at best we would be looking to get back the extra £8m from the pension fund, not the entire £16m and also it would then only be fair that the other bits and peices he agreed to drop were renegotiated due to the entire thing being renegotiated. So that would mean an extra years salary and all those share options given back to him..

RDM · 27 Feb 2009 at 15:03

Evangelion said:
Erm, no.

The government has said that the reason they didn't intervene before was because they believed that the pension was contractually obligated. In other words, their refusal to was based upon a reluctance to override contract law.

If of course they are telling the truth.

Evangelion said:
Now that we know the pension isn't protected by contractual obligation, it is clear that the government would not be overriding contract law if they forced him to accept a lower sum.

It was part of his agreed severance package though, a contract made between him and the bank on his resignation. That in itself forms a contract.

starfighter · 27 Feb 2009 at 15:05

In case this has not been said, from the BBC website:

Mr Cable said Sir Fred should receive £27,000 a year - the amount he would have received under the pension protection scheme if RBS had gone bankrupt, which would have happened if it had not been bailed-out by taxpayers.