Maximum Wage Law - Corbyn

[The perfect fumble]

Oh, you've gone and spoilt it now.

But they don't, for reasons aguero 93.20 knows.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I think you'll find the shareholders have the option of replacing the lot of them at an AGM or EGM.

It's not a simple as that, mate.

 

[The perfect fumble]

I think you'll find the shareholders have the option of replacing the lot of them at an AGM or EGM.

The shareholders are a disparate group, with no single voice, it's like herding cats. in truth the pressure to reign in executive pay mostly comes from hedge fund managers (as you know). Shareholder power is often talked about but is rarely decisive. Boards do everything they can to avoid executive pay even being discussed at AGMs, even getting it on the agenda is a near impossibility task.

Shareholder revolts are rare not because shareholders are content but because of the obstacles they face in pulling them off

 

[aguero93:20]

It's not a simple as that, mate.

It is if they agree. They own the company after all. Simple vote of no confidence, make the board stand for reelection and then turf them out. If there isn't the will to do that then it suggests that enough of them think the board are worth their remuneration.

 

[aguero93:20]

The shareholders are a disparate group, with no single voice, it's like herding cats. in truth the pressure to reign in executive pay mostly comes from hedge fund managers (as you know). Shareholder power is often talked about but is rarely decisive. Boards do everything they can to avoid executive pay even being discussed at AGMs, even getting it on the agenda is a near impossibility task.

Shareholder revolts are rare not because shareholders are content but because of the obstacles they face in pulling them off

They don't need to discuss executive pay.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It is if they agree. They own the company after all. Simple vote of no confidence, make the board stand for reelection and then turf them out. If there isn't the will to do that then it suggests that enough of them think the board are worth their remuneration.

Institutional shareholders are inherently conservative. Board members are conscious of this. Unless they get caught with their hands in the till, or wanking off a goat, they know they're almost certainly at least two AGMs from being launched imo - and take the piss accordingly.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

The shareholders are a disparate group, with no single voice, it's like herding cats. in truth the pressure to reign in executive pay mostly comes from hedge fund managers (as you know). Shareholder power is often talked about but is rarely decisive. Boards do everything they can to avoid executive pay even being discussed at AGMs, even getting it on the agenda is a near impossibility task.

Shareholder revolts are rare not because shareholders are content but because of the obstacles they face in pulling them off

cats are easy to herd, it's called biscuits.

 

[hilts]

He wants us to know that he is not 'wedded' to the idea of open borders and we should be considering stopping immigration and then in the next breath he said he believes that we should restrict immigration but only in respect of job agencies who exploit cheap labour in eastern european countries otherwise there should be open borders.

So in answer to your question he hasn't got a plan.

Thanks just saw the news, he basically doesn't like open borders because it affects the working classes wages and he needs that support but he likes open borders because otherwise he is seen as a racist nutjob, he did manage to throw the NHS deflection in as well. So nothing has changed he doesn't really like the EU but hasn't the balls to say so.

I think I'm getting the hang of this new honest politics now

 

[The perfect fumble]

It is if they agree. They own the company after all. Simple vote of no confidence, make the board stand for reelection and then turf them out. If there isn't the will to do that then it suggests that enough of them think the board are worth their remuneration.

A vote of no confidence, yeah right.

Don't play games, don't talk about shareholders as if they were one united group with a single leader. Small shareholders, even if they are willing and able to organise, are easily picked off. institutional shareholders are profoundly conservative, only serious malpractice galvanises them

You know these things. I get pissed off with you not because I disagree with you, but because you post shit you know to be untrue, that's why I increasingly give you short shrift, you are deliberately disingenuous and you do love to cultivate your little fan club who then look to you to legitimise their ignorance.

 

[hilts]

A vote of no confidence, yeah right.

Don't play games, don't talk about shareholders as if they were one united group with a single leader. Small shareholders, even if they are willing and able to organise, are easily picked off. institutional shareholders are profoundly conservative, only serious malpractice galvanises them

You know these things. I get pissed off with you not because I disagree with you, but because you post shit you know to be untrue, that's why I increasingly give you short shrift, you are deliberately disingenuous and you do love to cultivate your little fan club who then look to you to legitimise their ignorance.

Have I wandered into the lack of self awareness thread?