AA chief fired for 'Clarkson moment' could lose nearly £100million in share options

Uther · 3 Aug 2017 at 10:31

Ridiculous amount of money.

aardvark · 3 Aug 2017 at 10:31

stupid amount of money - if he started the company fine, but getting paid that for a CEO job is ridiculous.

FortuitousFluke · 3 Aug 2017 at 10:36

stewski said:
100mil lost in share options, is that the sound of the worlds smallest violin?

You heartless bugger! I suppose you also don't care that he lost his 10% car allowance, free gym membership and that he now has to pay his own yearly subscription to access the Virgin Atlantic First Class Lounge at Heathrow? How is he going to feed his kids?

Tefal · 3 Aug 2017 at 10:42

UTmaniac said:
I'm not suggesting I deserve some of the shares, but using that analogy of spreading the share wealth to demonstrate how bloody ridiculous it is that one person gets a performance bonus that could change the lives of the lowest UK earners in an instant.

All because he was at the helm during stock market float.

I dread to think how many other CEOs have been given unjustifiable share bonuses like this, for simply being in the right place at the right time, eg. Moya Greene at Royal Mail?

but if spread evenly its less than £1.50 per person.

not even enough to buy a coffee

UTmaniac · 3 Aug 2017 at 10:52

Tefal said:
but if spread evenly its less than £1.50 per person.

not even enough to buy a coffee

Posted while at least 75% asleep, I clearly needed my AA shares derived cup of coffee.

Rroff · 3 Aug 2017 at 11:08

Vonhelmet said:
Where you works sounds like the outlier. Most places will grant the options, then you have to stick around for a number of years until they vest.

I wasn't comparing like for like - I found the context of the article a bit confused and missed a couple of key bits in the back and forth.

Tefal · 3 Aug 2017 at 11:10

but the shares may have been worth a lot less when initially awarded

UTmaniac · 3 Aug 2017 at 11:23

Yep, maybe all AA employees were given ~£5000 worth of shares initially (as the success or otherwise is down to them all).

Why should the CEO be given say ~20x more (or no doubt higher in this case) free shares compared to other AA employees?

Vonhelmet · 3 Aug 2017 at 11:30

UTmaniac said:
Yep, maybe all AA employees were given ~£5000 worth of shares initially (as the success or otherwise is down to them all).

Why should the CEO be given say ~20x more (or no doubt higher in this case) free shares compared to other AA employees?

Because he's the CEO and you're trying to incentivise him? He has the potential to influence the success or failure of the business more than any other individual.

UTmaniac · 3 Aug 2017 at 11:45

Vonhelmet said:
Because he's the CEO and you're trying to incentivise him? He has the potential to influence the success or failure of the business more than any other individual.

He was no doubt paid a very nice standard salary for having that responsibility, IMO it does not warrant him (or any other CEO in any other business during the privatisation of a company) getting more shares than "Fred" who fixes cars on the M6.

Tefal · 3 Aug 2017 at 11:59

it does say he was only going to get them if they met targets in the comming years though.

So if he didnt perform hed lose them too

dowie · 3 Aug 2017 at 12:05

UTmaniac said:
He was no doubt paid a very nice standard salary for having that responsibility, IMO it does not warrant him (or any other CEO in any other business during the privatisation of a company) getting more shares than "Fred" who fixes cars on the M6.

that doesn't make much sense - if Fred screws up in his job then, in the grand scheme of things, it makes little difference - Fred can get sacked, Fred maybe costs the company a few thousand... it's peanuts. Likewise if Fred works his ass off then maybe the company gets some more good reviews a bit more business etc.. and Fred maybe gains the company thousands.

on the other hand this guy being sacked alone wiped 200 million off the share price and his decisions will make or lose vast sums over the years her serves there thus he'll be incentivised to reflect that

StriderX · 3 Aug 2017 at 12:22

Vonhelmet said:
Because he's the CEO and you're trying to incentivise him? He has the potential to influence the success or failure of the business more than any other individual.

After the founder, it's downhill for quality CEO's, they'll either strip the company bare or simply take care of things while they earn some fat stacks for doing nothing.

Vonhelmet · 3 Aug 2017 at 12:29

Well, yeah, I'm not saying all CEOs are good or that all of them deserve what they're paid, but the principle is there.

balky12 · 3 Aug 2017 at 12:30

So much jealousy in this thread.

Yup, being a CEO is easy and doesn't deserve huge incentives. :rolleyes:

Maybe people suggesting this should just join them? After all it's easy.

StriderX · 3 Aug 2017 at 12:55

balky12 said:
So much jealousy in this thread.

Yup, being a CEO is easy and doesn't deserve huge incentives.

Maybe people suggesting this should just join them? After all it's easy.

All you need to is appear to manage the managers managing the other managers... its literally just a very small group of people they need to please (shareholders) and they can even be total ******* ******** (Steve Jobs).

Was the Guy who ran BHS incentivised enough or did he literally steal from the employees?

Vonhelmet · 3 Aug 2017 at 12:58

StriderX said:
All you need to is appear to manage the managers managing the other managers... its literally just a very small group of people they need to please (shareholders) and they can even be total ******* ******** (Steve Jobs).

Was the Guy who ran BHS incentivised enough or did he literally steal from the employees?

Philip Green is a special case.

Steve Jobs is one of the most successful businessmen ever. I'm not sure you could credibly argue he was overpaid given how successful he made Apple.

dowie · 3 Aug 2017 at 12:58

StriderX said:
Was the Guy who ran BHS incentivised enough or did he literally steal from the employees?

which one are you referring to?

StriderX · 3 Aug 2017 at 13:03

Vonhelmet said:
Philip Green is a special case.

Steve Jobs is one of the most successful businessmen ever. I'm not sure you could credibly argue he was overpaid given how successful he made Apple.

I was just describing that they can get away with being possibly the most evil people, and still be employed.

dowie · 3 Aug 2017 at 13:06

StriderX said:
I was just describing that they can get away with being possibly the most evil people, and still be employed.

but you're conflating an employee and someone who literally owns the company (or rather his wife did)