Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Still avoiding the question though. Who? Gemmill? Aye he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) Mind you I reckon Fop could get the usual suspects arguing that Hitler was a great guy with some carefully chosen statements - in fact I think I have had them arguing Stalin was. Edited January 22, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Still avoiding the question though. Who? Gemmill? Aye he is. In the huff again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26811 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 It is rather bizarre considering their recent business practices (since being nationalised, never mind prior to that). What business practices would those be, Fop? Since being nationalised that is. Fopsilence Fopnotnoticegemmill. (easy to do). If you work there, Gemmill, you should know regarding running down the business with like thought for anything other than paying the borrowed amount, regarding lending, mortgages and repossessions. So it's bonuses for misery and compounding the current lending/housing issues. Never mind the whole taxpayers money for the bank bonus philosophy that got everyone into the current mess issue. So are you saying the NR should have continued running the business as before and so have had the tax payer to continue bailing them out? No, but then that's not the same thing at all. They've had their wrist slapped for the repossession issue by the Government (well above the banking average), and for some of the tactics they've used to unload mortgages - which helped in the sense of paying off NR debt (hence this bonus), but not in the sense of the economy or people's welfare. Which wouldn't be so bad, but the people suffering are the owners of NR (and are paying said bonuses). Really if the usual suspects what to argue with Fop, then you should pick an issue where you have some firm ground under you. You've got a fucking cheek. So, yes or no, would you prefer it that we were still bailing out NR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Still avoiding the question though. Who? Gemmill? Aye he is. In the huff again? He could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 So, yes or no, would you prefer it that we were still bailing out NR? Where do you think the bonus is coming from? Or more importantly that the bonus was needed to get the staff to do what they have done (even though the Government haven't liked much of it - publicly at least)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26811 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 So, yes or no, would you prefer it that we were still bailing out NR? Where do you think the bonus is coming from? Or more importantly that the bonus was needed to get the staff to do what they have done (even though the Government haven't liked much of it - publicly at least)? Not answering the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 So, yes or no, would you prefer it that we were still bailing out NR? Where do you think the bonus is coming from? Or more importantly that the bonus was needed to get the staff to do what they have done (even though the Government haven't liked much of it - publicly at least)? Not answering the question. If it cost less than the £90m in bonuses (+ the higher bonuses on top) and the negative effect to the economy, benefits and socially then yes. But either way there's no justification for the bonuses. Or are you saying there is a justification for the bonuses, if so what is that justification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26811 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 So, yes or no, would you prefer it that we were still bailing out NR? Where do you think the bonus is coming from? Or more importantly that the bonus was needed to get the staff to do what they have done (even though the Government haven't liked much of it - publicly at least)? Not answering the question. If it cost less than the £90m in bonuses (+ the higher bonuses on top) and the negative effect to the economy, benefits and socially then yes. But either way there's no justification for the bonuses. Or are you saying there is a justification for the bonuses, if so what is that justification? £90m? Where are you getting that from? Most are estimating £8.8m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) So, yes or no, would you prefer it that we were still bailing out NR? Where do you think the bonus is coming from? Or more importantly that the bonus was needed to get the staff to do what they have done (even though the Government haven't liked much of it - publicly at least)? Not answering the question. If it cost less than the £90m in bonuses (+ the higher bonuses on top) and the negative effect to the economy, benefits and socially then yes. But either way there's no justification for the bonuses. Or are you saying there is a justification for the bonuses, if so what is that justification? £90m? Where are you getting that from? Most are estimating £8.8m. Typo, should be £9m But you're not answering the question, to quote someone: You've got a fucking cheek. So are you saying there is a justification for the bonuses, if so what is that justification? Edited January 22, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No one is saying they're justifiable tbf, as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) No one is saying they're justifiable tbf, as far as I can see. Well Ewerk won't mind answering the question then will he. (And Gemmill could answer the question posed to him too, considering he seems to think they haven't been doing what they have been doing. ) Edited January 22, 2009 by Fop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26811 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 So are you saying there is a justification for the bonuses, if so what is that justification? I never said they were justifiable, I was disagreeing with you having a go at a struggling bank changing it's business practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No one is saying they're justifiable tbf, as far as I can see. Well Ewerk won't mind answering the question then will he. Probably waiting for you to tell us which bizarre post-nationalisation business practices you were referring to. Or maybe he wanted a source for your claim that management will get a lot more than 10% (which would contradict reports in the media). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 So are you saying there is a justification for the bonuses, if so what is that justification? I never said they were justifiable, I was disagreeing with you having a go at a struggling bank changing it's business practices. Except I never said that. I just said that the bonus was even more bizarre considering what they changed them too (and the Government have agreed with that themselves - again publicly anyway). So as we both agree they are completely unjustifiable, what are you arguing about again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 No one is saying they're justifiable tbf, as far as I can see. Well Ewerk won't mind answering the question then will he. Probably waiting for you to tell us which bizarre post-nationalisation business practices you were referring to. I've already said. Or maybe he wanted a source for your claim that management will get a lot more than 10% (which would contradict reports in the media). :angry: The intended management bonuses are in the public domain (did you miss the furore about that too?). ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Re: the first bit - don't be so childish. If you want people to stop laughing at you, don't keep saying you already said something you didn't. Re: the 2nd bit, I was only going off what Chez was saying. You may well be correct. There's no way anybody should be getting a bonus btw and there's no way Brown should justifying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26811 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm bored now, clearly I lack the stamina of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Re: the first bit - don't be so childish. If you want people to stop laughing at you, don't keep saying you already said something you didn't. It's up above re: the repossession rate and lending. And it's hardly "childish" considering your continuous repetitions is it? Glass houses and such. Re: the 2nd bit, I was only going off what Chez was saying. You may well be correct. There's no way anybody should be getting a bonus btw and there's no way Brown should justifying it. If Gemmill actually works there ask him (and ask him about the points I have mentioned), by all accounts it will scale to 30%+ as you go up the tree (I should be able to find out later on, but "frantic" and all that, the usual public just won't wait ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I'm bored now, clearly I lack the stamina of others. So basically you agree with Fop whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35539 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I've got an idea Fop. If you provide me with a detailed analysis of NR's business plan post-nationalisation, then you provide me with an alternative, more-palatable-to-Fop business plan that would have achieved the corporate objectives, then we can continue this discussion. Otherwise my advice to you would be to sign off and go and squeeze your spots. Daily Mail chatter about repossessions being above national average won't suffice btw. Repossessions aren't part of a business plan, they're a function of economic conditions. I want an alternative business plan with practices that work, achieve the objective and that you would have approved of. The floor is yours. Go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 I've got an idea Fop. If you provide me with a detailed analysis of NR's business plan post-nationalisation, then you provide me with an alternative, more-palatable-to-Fop business plan that would have achieved the corporate objectives, then we can continue this discussion. Otherwise my advice to you would be to sign off and go and squeeze your spots. Daily Mail chatter about repossessions being above national average won't suffice btw. Repossessions aren't part of a business plan, they're a function of economic conditions. I want an alternative business plan with practices that work, achieve the objective and that you would have approved of. The floor is yours. Go. So basically Fop was 100% right and Gemmill is 100% annoyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 35539 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Looks like it's spot squeezing time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Looks like it's spot squeezing time. As alex and ewerk like to say - answer the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Looks like it's spot squeezing time. As alex and ewerk like to say - answer the question. Yeah, they love to say that. Not a symptom of your slippery bastard evasion techniques of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now