bet365 boss pays herself £265 MILLION

Efour said:
She can do what she wants.

Best bit is her crazy wage hikes up the womens average pay gap a fair bit :p

Pretty sure there comes a point where money becomes irelevirre, she must be near it.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant for direct spending maybe but very relevant as far as power and status goes. Normally people in these positions make good use of power and status and having ludicrous amounts of money gives her this power and status.
 
danlightbulb said:
I dont know how many work at b365, or what bonus schemes they may already have however in cases like this I would like to see more distributed to staff. If she took just 25% (c.£50m) of that payout and gave it out to staff that could be £25k each if there were 2000 employees which is life changing money.

If I was her, I genuinely cant think of a reason I wouldnt do that. Its nothing to her.
Click to expand...

I fully and wholeheartedly agree with you.

Apparently there are about 4000 employees. Many of whom will work their arse off for 45 years and at the end they will have missed the growing up of their children, barely had any time to feed their children, barely had any time to do anything other than work, and at the end they're sitting in a beat up house half of which half is owned by a bank, drive a beat up car which is on finance, while someone who just happens to be in control of 4000 slaves, gets to buy multiple houses, raise their children in with all the time and resource they want, amass grotesque amounts of personal wealth, etc, etc.

It's modern slavery.
 
dl8860 said:
I would think if everyone in the company is on decent wages to start with, if she declare a flat profit share of 25k for all FTE's, I don't think you would have higher ups clamouring for more. It would paint you in a bad greedy light to complain about receiving a 25k profit share out of good will.
Click to expand...

People who moans they are not on a decent wage needs to find new job.

And bonuses are never flat, it’s almost always performance related in the real world.

Again, I admire your philosophy but back on earth, it is never going to happen.
 
Nitefly said:
All that money from a habit that ruins live... ugh. Gives me the willies.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the

"when the FUN stops, stop"

They have plastered on the windows of every bookie. So if a child is walking past at a distance all they see is FUN plastered on the windows.
 
dl8860 said:
I would think if everyone in the company is on decent wages to start with, if she declare a flat profit share of 25k for all FTE's, I don't think you would have higher ups clamouring for more. It would paint you in a bad greedy light to complain about receiving a 25k profit share out of good will.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they, especially if their bonus has now been slashed? In fact why bother anymore, they're just going to get the same bonus as everyone else so might as well just clock off at 5pm on the dot.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I admire your philosophy but in the real world, if the cleaner gets 25k bonus, the cashier will want 50k, his manager will want 100k, the area manager will want 200k, before you know it she isn’t getting any bonus herself...and do you think that’s going to happen?
Click to expand...

The salary paid and any direct performance bonuses reflects the role itself, therefore bonuses paid which are in effect 'profit share' rather than performance related can legitimately be flat rate.

As has been said above, anyone who complains at not getting more bonus than the cleaner, provided the role salary was reflective of the role, would not have a place in my company. I doubt anyone other than a self entitled lawyer would have an issue with that.
 
imagine a company where you have several levels of management with different levels of responsibility. As you go up, your responsibility increases, you are held more accountable, decisions you make risk more and often the in office hours and out of office hours reflect this. Why would the office grunt take the standard paltry pay rise to lower management for all that extra stress when they know the pay difference will be received at the end of the year but a whole order of magnitude larger.

When you offer everyone 25k, then the percentage difference between the positions become small enough that you remove incentive to climb and work hard.
 
danlightbulb said:
The salary paid and any direct perfornance bonuses reflects the role itself, therefore bonuses paid which are in effect 'profit share' rather than performance related can legitimately be flat rate.
Click to expand...

But one of the benefits of bonuses is that they're variable both among individuals and year to year. If you increase a salary significantly then that has a knock on effect on subsequent years, it increases your fixed costs.

If someone has performed well and helped increase revenues significantly then you'll want to reward them to both retain them and incentivise future performance - a bonus can be useful here. If someone has performed poorly and is perhaps just about worth keeping on but you wouldn't care too much if they jumped ship then why on earth would you want to pay them the same bonus as the person who actually earned it.
 
For example, Johnlewis/Waitrose i believe offer a % bonus at the end of each financial year based profits. I dont see how this is unfair. If the job at the lower level is good enough at their current wage, then they would surely be happy to receive a bonus relative to their wage?
 
Not exactly a difficult job, you can't really fail with gambling :p

But no one really needs that much money. The guys working for peanuts probably do the real hard graft, they should get more of a share.
 
dowie said:
But one of the benefits of bonuses is that they're variable both among individuals and year to year. If you increase a salary significantly then that has a knock on effect on subsequent years, it increases your fixed costs.

If someone has performed well and helped increase revenues significantly then you'll want to reward them to both retain them and incentivise future performance - a bonus can be useful here. If someone has performed poorly and is perhaps just about worth keeping on but you wouldn't care too much if they jumped ship then why on earth would you want to pay them the same bonus as the person who actually earned it.
Click to expand...

Dowie, mate, you are not listening to what im saying.

Each role will have a salary which reflects the skill level and responsibilities.

Each role should, ideally, have performance related bonuses as well, linked directly to your performance. Progressive, profitable, private companies should do this.

These two things are what incentivises you to do your job well and rewards you appropriately.

And any company should clear dead wood if its not performing.

Here we are looking at something on top, which might not be annual, is certainly not guaranteed, and is in effect a gift from the company or in this case a single shareholder, who has made more money than can ever be spent. Its a gift which is not related to performance or contribution at all. Hence why it should be flat rate.

It is simply a case of a kind shareholder helping out the people who work at her company, unprompted, unprecidented, indiscriminatory of anything. A gift to people she works with every day, from someone who has that much it simply wont be missed.
 
Last edited:
asim18 said:
Apparently there are about 4000 employees. Many of whom will work their arse off for 45 years and at the end they will have missed the growing up of their children, barely had any time to feed their children, barely had any time to do anything other than work, and at the end they're sitting in a beat up house half of which half is owned by a bank, drive a beat up car which is on finance, while someone who just happens to be in control of 4000 slaves, gets to buy multiple houses, raise their children in with all the time and resource they want, amass grotesque amounts of personal wealth, etc, etc.

It's modern slavery.
Click to expand...

If you dont want to work for somebody else, why dont you just risk everything you have and start your own business?

Your story about the rich getting richer doesn't work in this case. Peter Coates had 13 siblings and was the son of a miner - i'm guessing he wasn't part of the upper class elites. He (and his daughter) clearly worked hard to build a business.
 
dowie said:
Why wouldn't they, especially if their bonus has now been slashed? In fact why bother anymore, they're just going to get the same bonus as everyone else so might as well just clock off at 5pm on the dot.
Click to expand...
I made the caveat 'if everyone is on decent wage already', which already means bonuses for people in positions that warrant performance related bonuses, and I didn't mention slashing their bonuses. I mean a one off declaration by the CEO that because the company is doing well, that on top of their existing total compensation package, all staff will get a profit share of 25k. I strongly don't think people would clamour about that.
 
It’s a privately owned business she co founded and owns a share along with some of her family

She can do what she likes with the money it makes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom