AIBs Two Fingers To Lenihan

donkey balls

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It was on Vincent Browne a few minutes ago that there are, in fact, TWO issues.

1) Lenihan supposedly doesn't want this guy at the top
2) Lenihan says that he doesn't want the salary (despite not putting it into the required legislation)

So basically, if Lenihan "stands up to" the bank on the salary issue (which he wouldn't have to do if he'd written the legislation properly) the other issue sneaks under the counter and it looks like the incompetent has "done his job".

and him working as a snr counsel FFS you think that a bit of legistslation would be bomb proof that he brings in to stop them(banks legal teams) from getting around it.

Liam Byrne

donkey balls wrote: »

and him working as a snr counsel FFS you think that a bit of legistslation would be bomb proof that he brings in to stop them(banks legal teams) from getting around it.

Sure that angle isn't even IN the legislation.......it's not that he didn't do it properly.....he didn't have any interest in doing it before signing away our money.

Then again, it's the same idiot that didn't bother his arse reading the Anglo report before throwing away more of our money.

With this FF Government, wanting to do the right thing and failing would actually be an improvement.......they've no interest in doing the right thing by the public whatsoever..... :mad:

donkey balls

agree 100% liam when it came out in the media that he did not read the report on the anglo deal, first thing i said to my mates was i hope i never have someone like him representing me in court and he doesent bother reading the witness/evidence statements.

by jaysus lenihan is in my catchment area regarding the voting he will never get a vote of me or his cronies.

ei.sdraob

AIB to back down over chief's €633,000 salary

Liam Byrne

ei.sdraob wrote: »

AIB to back down over chief's €633,000 salary

.....but not on WHO!!

A spokesman for Mr Lenihan said he had no option but to accept an internal candidate.

And in relation to my earlier post......

The bank was on a collision course with Mr Lenihan over its plans to appoint one of its own senior executives, Colm Doherty, as its managing director, on a salary of €633,000.

But Mr Lenihan hit back, saying the Government was "not willing to break with the established guideline" on pay limits.

There was speculation in banking circles last night that the standoff amounted to little more than a 'phoney war' destined to end in victory for Mr Lenihan.

Wow! I'm getting better at seeing Irish politics for what it is!

Wish I was wrong, though :mad:

monkeypants

kbannon wrote: »

old boy wrote: »

i do not have a bank account

Bertie, is that you?

Well spotted!

ardmacha

There was speculation in banking circles last night that the standoff amounted to little more than a 'phoney war' destined to end in victory for Mr Lenihan.

This seems quite likely. "We've reduced the bankers, so now all of you PS people take your medicine", although most of the PS people earn less than the reduction taken by the banker

meditraitor

What I find to be a bit troubling is that the Cap on wages was introduced with big fanfair and its only now that we realise that it was all smoke and mirrors.

The €500,000 cap only relates to one job, what a con job the government/bankers are pulling

The guy who AIB wanted to promote is on €633,000 so why was he not reduced to below €500,000 ages ago?
These gangsters are living in our pocket folks.

bernardo mac

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I can't help thinking that this is complete sleight-of-hand misdirection.

As has been pointed out, there are at least 3 or 4 other things that the Government hasn't done it's job on in relation to AIB.

By making it look like AIB is aiming for a higher pay packet, and Lenihan wading in to "save the day" in the interests of the taxpayer, the other 3 or 4 will be forgotten about, AIB will get their way on everything else, and the more gullible will believe that Lenihan has acted in our interests.

Conspiracy theory or the real scenario ? Time will tell.

Indeed you could be right Liam!:cool:

jdivision

Just been announced he'll take the job for 500k

Dannyboy83

jdivision wrote: »

Just been announced he'll take the job for 500k

With an end of year bonus of 250k I bet;)

meditraitor

They probably topped up his pension to cover the €133k loss in wages,

If my skepticism is proved wrong then fair play to the guy, tough job in a notorious bank

Tipp Man

meditraitor wrote: »

What I find to be a bit troubling is that the Cap on wages was introduced with big fanfair and its only now that we realise that it was all smoke and mirrors.

The €500,000 cap only relates to one job, what a con job the government/bankers are pulling

The guy who AIB wanted to promote is on €633,000 so why was he not reduced to below €500,000 ages ago?
These gangsters are living in our pocket folks.

Perhaps he deserves to earn 633k or whatever it is??

Personally i don't see what all the fuss is over, its not like they wanted to pay him 2-3m

meditraitor

Tipp Man wrote: »

Perhaps he deserves to earn 633k or whatever it is??

You forgot the

InReality

It also shows how the "sure its only the name on the door" line about nationalisation was such a great piece of spin.

Neilor

I used to think bankers were the dumbest people you would ever run into... the whole credit crunch seemed to confirm that the idiots didn't know what they were doing and were basically incompetent. However now that I see that the king rat can earn €10,000 A WEEK... they must be geniuses on the scale of an Einstein !!! I mean they couldn't possibly be moraly vacant theiving asses that would sell their mothers, wives and children to get a buck ? Could they ??

drBill

Bottom line is that the battle has been lost. Quelle surprise! Him and his buddies will find some other way to get the money and 130K is not a very significant amount of money in the circumstances. More important is the fact that they have ignored the instruction to fill the post externally, but this has been overlooked in the fog. So they've gotten their way as always. Now it'll just be back to business as usual for them, i.e. extract as much money as possible from the rest of us in any way possible.
From their perspective, and ignoring any moral qualms, why would they change a winning formula?

Linoge

drBill wrote: »

Him and his buddies will find some other way to get the money and 130K is not a very significant amount of money in the circumstances. More important is the fact that they have ignored the instruction to fill the post externally, but this has been overlooked in the fog.

I agree completely. In most big corporations most of the remuneration is performance based and received by way of stock or bonuses. Is this €500,000 cap air tight and inclusive of everything? In some cases the CEO takes zero by way of "salary" and the rest is received by way of stock and bonus. This ridiculous cap, which is too low by global standards, has done its job of keeping the same management structure as before.

This debacle was "unforeseen"??? It is so blatant it is an insult, how was such a low wage ever going to attract a world class leader? Would it have been such a stretch to cap the salaries of all existing directors, then the usual remuneration for an outside person coming in. I mean logically, why should an outside person take a salary cut because the pigs that were there before him made such a mess?? Who would want to take on such a task as overhauling a bank and be paid less than the market rate? I really can't get my head around such logic. These people are professionals, not aid workers.

markpb

Linoge wrote: »

how was such a low wage ever going to attract a world class leader?

I'd question the value of a world class leader in a small Irish bank. If AIB was an international bank with no branch network in Ireland and no involvement with Irish SMEs, they'd definitely need a world class leader. They're not - they're a national bank with aspirations and everytime they get it wrong, they expose the Irish taxpayer to their mistakes. They should be one or the other but not both - they're of systemic importance to our economy.

Daithinski

drBill wrote: »

Bottom line is that the battle has been lost. Quelle surprise! Him and his buddies will find some other way to get the money ...

+1 on this he'll just get the equivalent tacked onto to a bonus/pension payment.

I think the only thing the government and AIB had to figure out was how to sell it to the public.

Like the way AIB planned to pay their employees controversial bonuses on the sly. When they first went to pay the bonuses, they told the employees a week in advance when they were going to pay the bonuses, and told them not to tell anyone, but within hours the press got wind of it and the bonus payments were "cancelled" (in reality they were only postponed) .


So to get around this problem AIB played a bit dumb with their employees, by promising staff they would get a bonus but playing dumb as to when, the plan was/is to put the bonuses into the employees bank accounts with no advance warning so the press wouldn't get wind of it and scupper it again.

monkeypants

Linoge wrote: »

I agree completely. In most big corporations most of the remuneration is performance based and received by way of stock or bonuses. Is this €500,000 cap air tight and inclusive of everything? In some cases the CEO takes zero by way of "salary" and the rest is received by way of stock and bonus. This ridiculous cap, which is too low by global standards, has done its job of keeping the same management structure as before.

Absolutely, just look up Mark Hurd's salary cut at HP. Really put him on the breadline.

old boy

so finna fail got lucky again twice in the one day, the henry incident during the game last night scubbered any chance of questions being asked of clowns answer (sorry munblings) in the dail, how come no journalist has asked questions of a.i.b. about all this.