Playing fast and loose while the bank went into meltdown.....

[mint]

So, here you have it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/8523323/Sir-Fred-Goodwin-obtained-injunction-to-hide-alleged-affair-with-senior-colleague.html

Fate of RBS didn't bother him one bit.  Number One has been well-looked after.....

[Pommier]

This was the lead story on the BBC early evening news, but I find myself asking 'Why?'

I don't see that the fact that he had an affair has any relevence to the collapse of the bank, so all it amounts to is another bit of 'celebrity' gossip.

[mint]

I think the implication was that he was distracted from his banking (oops, nearly got the wrong vowel there!) activities and was not fully focused on the job.

Also, I think there was so much resentment generated by his golden goodbye that there will always be those who will try to bring him down a peg or two.

[idun]

If memory serves properly he is getting £700k per year in pension. That would appear to me to be rewarding him for sinking the ship and I rather felt he should have been made to walk the plank, metaphorically speaking ofcourse.

 

[Anton Redman II]

The reclassificaton of crap assets - broadly mortgages of 120 % of value in poor parts of the USA - was pretty easy.

[fisherman]

The reason that Fred Goodwin walked off with such a good deal was that the Politicians wanted to get rid of him quickly and Fred was smarter than the civil servants sent to do the deal.

[Quillan]

[quote user="fisherman"]The reason that Fred Goodwin walked off with such a good deal was that the Politicians wanted to get rid of him quickly and Fred was smarter than the civil servants sent to do the deal.[/quote]

Not so much those that wanted to get rid of him but those that employed him in the first place and were quite happy to meet his demands and sign the contract. You can't 'blame' Fred, you should blame the board. They all thought they were going to make a shed load of money out of him and it didn't work so they all should have been sacked. As to him 'having it off' with some bimbo who obviously thought the wider I open my legs the more money I will get out of him (and there is always the kiss and tell story to sell afterwards) , well that's his lookout, get caught and you know whats coming. Did it effect his job, no not really.

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Quillan"]You can't 'blame' Fred, you should blame the board. They all thought they were going to make a shed load of money out of him and it didn't work so they all should have been sacked. [/quote]

Q, you're having a laugh, of course you can blame him. He, and he alone, pursued the greatest takeover blunder of all time.

His arrogance and bully tactics brought the whole house down.

He should have been kicked out with nothing more than the shirt on his back.

I know, in the great scheme of things his payout is insignificant but the hurt that many thousands of ordinary workers feel about this fiasco will last a very long time.

Surely its those who lost everything that we should be thinking about, not this t w a t.

.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="Pommier"]This was the lead story on the BBC early evening news, but I find myself asking 'Why?' I don't see that the fact that he had an affair has any relevence to the collapse of the bank, so all it amounts to is another bit of 'celebrity' gossip.[/quote]it has been alledged that because he was having an affair with "a senior colleague" and not reporting this he was in breach of the bank's rules as there could have been a conflict of rules. Of course Sir Fred has received  a generous pension of  £700,000 pa later reduced to a paltry £500,000 pa for his efforts in bankrupting RBS  so it is not surprising that people are looking for ways to discredit him.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Bugsy"][quote user="Quillan"]You can't 'blame' Fred, you should blame the board. They all thought they were going to make a shed load of money out of him and it didn't work so they all should have been sacked. [/quote]

Q, you're having a laugh, of course you can blame him. He, and he alone, pursued the greatest takeover blunder of all time.

His arrogance and bully tactics brought the whole house down.

He should have been kicked out with nothing more than the shirt on his back.

I know, in the great scheme of things his payout is insignificant but the hurt that many thousands of ordinary workers feel about this fiasco will last a very long time.

Surely its those who lost everything that we should be thinking about, not this t w a t.

[/quote]

So those that employed him in the first place have no responsibility then? Both they and the shareholders who voted him in are equally as guilty in my book. I am not attempting to defend him or what he did at all but it was not just one person there are others involved who probably breathed a sigh of relief when he took the can for their mistakes as well. Clearly they are still there, one only has to look at the banks end of year results. The whole lot need to be removed and replaced.

[just john]

[quote user="fisherman"]The reason that Fred Goodwin walked off with such a good deal was that the Politicians wanted to get rid of him quickly and Fred was smarter than the civil servants sent to do the deal.[/quote]

Quite so fisherman; I guess we had the politicians the voters deserved

The affair demonstrated his  Moral_turpitude and lack of concern for the results of his actions.

Prior to that was the lack of due diligence and adequate framework that the bank were working in,

[quote user="Quillan"] Not so much those that wanted to get rid of him but those that employed him in the first place and were quite happy to meet his demands and sign the contract. You can't 'blame' Fred, you should blame the board.  [/quote]

Hardly Q do you blame those under you in any business?, He was the figurehead and his arrogance that drove the deal through despite all the adverse commentators.

[quote user="Bugsy"] He should have been kicked out with nothing more than the shirt on his back. [/quote]

Was that r a typo?[:@]

[Quillan]

[quote user="just john "]

[quote user="Quillan"] Not so much those that wanted to get rid of him but those that employed him in the first place and were quite happy to meet his demands and sign the contract. You can't 'blame' Fred, you should blame the board.  [/quote]

Hardly Q do you blame those under you in any business?, He was the figurehead and his arrogance that drove the deal through despite all the adverse commentators.

[/quote]

That depends doesn't it when you think about it. A person who starts (or buys) their own business and owns it then no, the 'buck' stops with the fella who owns it. A PLC where a board and the shareholders vote in a person to take control for a set period then yes those that voted him in are equally to blame. Don't forget they also had the ability, with mega penalty clauses of course, to vote him out. But then his promise of massive profits (and delivery, at one time quadrupling the price of RBS shares) clouded their judgement and they were quite happy to allow him to continue even though other financial institutions (ABN Hambro and Dresdner Kleinwort to name but two) gave them fair warning of what was to come. Goodwin was a megalomaniac rather like Murdoc but not so clever and he played with other peoples money. What he did was shameful but there was an opportunity and the mechanism to stop him but greed always wins. Lets not also forget that George Mathewson highly recomended him to the board for the job.

[just john]

 telegraph.- Cur-Fred-Goodwin-affair-secrecy-damaging-bank-debate

 News Group Newspapers suggest that trousers down Fred brought down RBS and we have a right to know the details . . .[Www]