bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

pp111 said:
It's true that not all of us are the entrepreneurs in this world, but why should such people get paid ten thousand times more than people who are equally skilled but skilled in different areas? And it is ridiculous to assume that people who are not company owners don't work hard. It takes more than one skill to make a big company work. What we are doing at the moment is rewarding certain skills out of all proportion to others.
Click to expand...

No one is assuming others don't work hard, this isn't necessarily about skill or hard work - that is somewhat missing the point.

Instead of a business owner consider perhaps a pop star - Taylor Swift for example... she doesn't need be the most highly skilled singer out there, or the best dancer etc.. there are likely better skilled singers who aren't pop stars and work as backing artists etc.. she's likely got a bunch of dancers in her tour group that are better trained than her. all her singers and dancers and the musicians in the band supporting her put in the hours in rehearsals, performances, they're all on tour together... but she gets the big $$$$ like massively more than any of them (or indeed all of them put together).

Likewise Elon Musk isn't the smartest person in the organisations he part owns or runs, that isn't why he gets the big bucks though.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe that entrepreneurs need to be rewarded for their special skills. I have no issue with people earning millions. But I have real issue with people
earning billions. It is not jealousy. I am not jealous of people who earn millions, why would I of people earning billions? It just seems totally immoral to me. When people in this world slog their guts out to barely earn a living wage, it can not be right that anyone can earn hundreds of thousands or even millions of times what they do, just because they have different skills.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it right though?

Say one of Taylor's backing singers is also a song writer, they're a really good singer perhaps - maybe they are able to get some gigs in small venues, maybe they can get paid to sing at weddings etc.. the fact is though that people aren't as interested in listening to them. They might make more money supporting Taylor on tour.

Likewise some AI researcher might be able to set up a small company, make a bit of money doing some consulting... or perhaps they could launch a product or mobile app and make a few $$$ though in plenty of cases they'll probably make more working for Elon on a fat salary and with stock options/RSUs

No one is stopping either the backing singer or the employee research scientist from doing their own thing or trying to.

Why does Taylor get the big bucks - because she's the reason everyone is there, she's the reason they're buying the tickets/albums, she created this stuff, it is her music, her songs etc.. no one gives a **** if some random backing dancer/singer/other "employee" gets sacked and replaced with an equally qualified hire, they're not the reason for the $$$ coming in and there are more of them out there.

Likewise in a large company most individuals are completely replaceable.

You get the big $$$ if you own a stake in the business and/or a stake in the profits/sales. In the case of Taylor, only she really owns a stake (or at least now - in the past some music execs owned a chunk too).

In the case of Elon and his ventures - early stage employees typically will own a chunk and there will be plenty of millionaires and multimillionaires who have benefited from working with him, they took a risk too. Once a company is larger and more established then it's perhaps less of a risk - why would anyone just handover millions to a developer joining Tesla today? They'll pay you your market rate... that will probs include equity and if the company does well then that equity increases.

In some traditional businesses like law and accounting firms becoming a partner is where you get the $$$

Re: a stake in the profits/sales - you don't necessarily *need* to own a chunk of the firm either as a partner getting a nice revenue stream or a tech company early employee or founder benefiting from growth - a salesperson might have a deal where they are given a % of sales as commission, if they perform disproportionately then no reason why they shouldn't be rewarded disproportionately - they've brought in the business... You can see similar with traders for example - in the oil industry there are even guys who are salaried and earn more than the CEO of their company in bonuses etc..
 
dowie said:
No one is assuming others don't work hard, this isn't necessarily about skill or hard work - that is somewhat missing the point.

Instead of a business owner consider perhaps a pop star - Taylor Swift for example... she doesn't need be the most highly skilled singer out there, or the best dancer etc.. there are likely better skilled singers who aren't pop stars and work as backing artists etc.. she's likely got a bunch of dancers in her tour group that are better trained than her. all her singers and dancers and the musicians in the band supporting her put in the hours in rehearsals, performances, they're all on tour together... but she gets the big $$$$ like massively more than any of them (or indeed all of them put together).

Likewise Elon Musk isn't the smartest person in the organisations he part owns or runs, that isn't why he gets the big bucks though.



Why isn't it right though?

Say one of Taylor's backing singers is also a song writer, they're a really good singer perhaps - maybe they are able to get some gigs in small venues, maybe they can get paid to sing at weddings etc.. the fact is though that people aren't as interested in listening to them. They might make more money supporting Taylor on tour.

Likewise some AI researcher might be able to set up a small company, make a bit of money doing some consulting... or perhaps they could launch a product or mobile app and make a few $$$ though in plenty of cases they'll probably make more working for Elon on a fat salary and with stock options/RSUs

No one is stopping either the backing singer or the employee research scientist from doing their own thing or trying to.

Why does Taylor get the big bucks - because she's the reason everyone is there, she's the reason they're buying the tickets/albums, she created this stuff, it is her music, her songs etc.. no one gives a **** if some random backing dancer/singer/other "employee" gets sacked and replaced with an equally qualified hire, they're not the reason for the $$$ coming in and there are more of them out there.

Likewise in a large company most individuals are completely replaceable.

You get the big $$$ if you own a stake in the business and/or a stake in the profits/sales. In the case of Taylor, only she really owns a stake (or at least now - in the past some music execs owned a chunk too).

In the case of Elon and his ventures - early stage employees typically will own a chunk and there will be plenty of millionaires and multimillionaires who have benefited from working with him, they took a risk too. Once a company is larger and more established then it's perhaps less of a risk - why would anyone just handover millions to a developer joining Tesla today? They'll pay you your market rate... that will probs include equity and if the company does well then that equity increases.

In some traditional businesses like law and accounting firms becoming a partner is where you get the $$$

Re: a stake in the profits/sales - you don't necessarily *need* to own a chunk of the firm either as a partner getting a nice revenue stream or a tech company early employee or founder benefiting from growth - a salesperson might have a deal where they are given a % of sales as commission, if they perform disproportionately then no reason why they shouldn't be rewarded disproportionately - they've brought in the business... You can see similar with traders for example - in the oil industry there are even guys who are salaried and earn more than the CEO of their company in bonuses etc..
Click to expand...


Everything you say I'm sure is right, but what I am saying is just that there should be a better sense of proportion. I am not against someone making the odd million here and there, but there should be sensible limits. Whether there is taxation or there are changes to company rules, or both, then something should be done to stop people amassing insane amounts of money. No single person needs or deserves a personal wealth in the order of billions. No one.
 
pp111 said:
Everything you say I'm sure is right, but what I am saying is just that there should be a better sense of proportion. I am not against someone making the odd million here and there, but there should be sensible limits. Whether there is taxation or there are changes to company rules, or both, then something should be done to stop people amassing insane amounts of money. No single person needs or deserves a personal wealth in the order of billions. No one.
Click to expand...
You just don’t get it. It’s not aboutt need or deserve, it’s the fact that none of business have the right to say how rich a law abiding person can be. It would be travesty if that were to happen, and I genuinely it would lead to far more problems than it solved.
 
Wow this thread is getting quite long.

To be honest, as long as the company is profitable, and all staff are being rewarded fairly, not just the top brass that effectively get paid from the work of others then what is the issue?

Google suggests 4,646 people work for Bet365. If we look at it that way, then the 265m this director was rewarded for their role, works out at 57k per employee!

I bet they got nowhere near 10% of that.
 
robfosters said:
You just don’t get it. It’s not aboutt need or deserve, it’s the fact that none of business have the right to say how rich a law abiding person can be. It would be travesty if that were to happen, and I genuinely it would lead to far more problems than it solved.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that, since extreme and overt wealth inequality causes extremely serious problems up to and including the total collapse of countries. Both approaches cause many problems. I'm not sure one leads to far more problems than the other. I also don't have a better solution. I'm not even sure there is one.

In this particular case, I'm far less bothered. She actually pays her taxes, for a start. In fact, that's part of the reason for her vast salary. She could hide some of her wealth much more effectively and thus evade/avoid tax. She chooses not to. As far as I know, she does so as a matter of principle.

Basher said:
Why would they? Are they all playing an equal part in success? All taking equal risk?
Click to expand...

She's taking much less risk than her employees now. They need the income from their jobs. She doesn't need income from anything. She could flush the whole company down the toilet at no risk to herself.

Who plays what part in success? How can anyone tell? Assigning all the credit to whoever is at the top of the hierarchy is easy but not necessarily true.
 
To be fair, has anyone factored in how many years she has also worked at the company, I mean to 'average' out her bonus/salary, rather than look at simply one year?
 
pp111 said:
Everything you say I'm sure is right, but what I am saying is just that there should be a better sense of proportion. I am not against someone making the odd million here and there, but there should be sensible limits. Whether there is taxation or there are changes to company rules, or both, then something should be done to stop people amassing insane amounts of money. No single person needs or deserves a personal wealth in the order of billions. No one.
Click to expand...

You dont make money by sitting on it, you make money by making it work, that means investing and risking your capital in land, labour and tools.

You propose that the government should take money away from her when she hits her cap, i would argue that someone who has managed to organise land, labour and capital in such a way to make that much profit is better at allocating resources than a public sector worker. Put simply, they would waste the money.

Lets no conflate extreme success and wanting to bring inequality down a bit, which i'm in agreement with. But she is not the problem. She is just doing her job. The problem is central banks inflating asset bubbles, central banks have a canny ability to inflate anything but wages.

Blame central banks, blame banks for not creating money and increasing commercial bank debt over the last 20 years, blame MMT.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
You dont make money by sitting on it, you make money by making it work, that means investing and risking your capital in land, labour and tools.

You propose that the government should take money away from her when she hits her cap, i would argue that someone who has managed to organised land, labour and capital in such a way to make that much profit is better at allocating resources than a public sector worker. Put simply, they would waste the money.
Click to expand...

You can't argue about what a government may or may not do, this is not about the competence of the government. This is about the morality of someone earning millions of times more than someone else, when both do afull days job of work. It is also about whether one individual should be allowed to "own" a company, when the very existence of that company also comes down to the abilities and hard work of the staff. How that situation is made right, I am not sure, but it needs to be addressed. We should not live in a world where most of the wealth is held by a tiny proportion of the population. It's just not morally acceptable. And no, I am not necessarily saying there should be a cap and we should just take everything away from them once they reach that cap, rather a system in place to ensure that people don't earn a disproportionate amount.
 
pp111 said:
You can't argue about what a government may or may not do, this is not about the competence of the government. This is about the morality of someone earning millions of times more than someone else, when both do afull days job of work. It is also about whether one individual should be allowed to "own" a company, when the very existence of that company also comes down to the abilities and hard work of the staff. How that situation is made right, I am not sure, but it needs to be addressed. We should not live in a world where most of the wealth is held by a tiny proportion of the population. It's just not morally acceptable. And no, I am not necessarily saying there should be a cap and we should just take everything away from them once they reach that cap, rather a system in place to ensure that people don't earn a disproportionate amount.
Click to expand...

But why is it more morally acceptable to steal from someone? Lets not tip toe around that, you are are stealing money from one person to give to another.
 
Trusty said:
You dont make money by sitting on it, you make money by making it work, that means investing and risking your capital in land, labour and tools.

You propose that the government should take money away from her when she hits her cap, i would argue that someone who has managed to organise land, labour and capital in such a way to make that much profit is better at allocating resources than a public sector worker. Put simply, they would waste the money.

Lets no conflate extreme success and wanting to bring inequality down a bit, which i'm in agreement with. But she is not the problem. She is just doing her job. The problem is central banks inflating asset bubbles, central banks have a canny ability to inflate anything but wages.

Blame central banks, blame banks for not creating money and increasing commercial bank debt over the last 20 years, blame MMT.
Click to expand...

The point is they are not better at spending it, it's being taken out of the economy for the most part and being stored in off shore bank accounts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom