Anyone else applying for the job of DG of the BBC?

capt_slog

Sounds like a bloody good deal to me.

I could apply for 7 weeks unpaid sabbatical leave from my current job and 'work' as the Director General of the BBC. At the end of that period, I declare myself incompetent at the job for some balls up or other and resign. RESIGN please note, not be fired.

For this seven week stint I could get around £60,000 pounds salary + £450,000 (a years salary in lieu of notice).

It just beggars belief, and I'm wondering why the fark I'm getting out of bed on a Monday morning. If I could get a years salary when I resigned from a job I'd be leaving at the end of each week!

Cleat Eastwood

You also have to be in the masons - I want chris pattens job - getting paid shield an enquiry into your pedophiles friends under the guise of 'bringing trust back to the bbc'.

I dont see why entwhistle has to go - newsnight didnt name mcalpine - it mentioned a senior tory - and he's still out there avoiding all of this.

He's a scapegoat.

OffTheBackAdam

It's the way the political elite run things these days. Screw up, walk off with a big wad. No personal responsibility, it's only private organisations that have responsibilities.
Now just wait a few months & see where he pops up and on what salary!
Oh, don't forget the £1.3 million pension pot he walks off with too.
The naming of a "Senior Tory" comes from where? Answer a front organisation for Labour.
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83327
Big surprise, no left bias in the BBC.

alihisgreat

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

capt_slog

It must be awful for them, let's organise a collection.

alihisgreat

Capt Slog wrote:

It must be awful for them, let's organise a collection.

That's the point.. its not awful because they've got the compensation

I'm saying that it would be awful if they didn't get the compensation.


So no need to arrange a cake sale in your Village hall... just stop whining about things you don't have an adequate understanding of.

capt_slog

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

So no need to arrange a cake sale in your Village hall... just stop whining about things you don't have an adequate understanding of.

OK, and you can stop being so patronizing.

cornerblock

Apparently the payment is partly due to the fact Mr Entwistle will be staying on to, "help on BBC business, most specifically two ongoing inquiries related to the Jimmy Savile abuse allegations". :roll: And also to do a stint as a guest presenter on The Real Hustle!

RDW

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

Capt Slog wrote:

I'm saying that it would be awful if they didn't get the compensation.

Good point. With only the pittance he will have managed to save from the £261,000 he earned over the last 18 months alone, and with no possibility of any future emplyment, it's a near certainty he would have been out on the street by Christmas.

OffTheBackAdam

His contract gives him "Only" 6-month's money for leaving, it's the charitable Mr Patten who's decided that a full year's worth is what he deserves to assuage hus suffering.

pinno

Capt Slog wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

So no need to arrange a cake sale in your Village hall... just stop whining about things you don't have an adequate understanding of.

OK, and you can stop being so patronizing.

Is it me or is that a hint of another Probike kit thread ? Must be the time of year (again).

MaxwellBygraves

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

Phew, glad you were around to put us straight.

team47b

Patronising git aside...

Who's money are they giving away, where did they get it from, who gave them permission?

Stick-poke-stick-stir...

TheStone

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

But that's justification for higher pay because the job is difficult and insecure. Not justification for being paid a massive wedge when they're shown up to be incapable of doing their job (this includes being head of a bank that goes bust ... for whatever reason).

alihisgreat

TheStone wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

But that's justification for higher pay because the job is difficult and insecure. Not justification for being paid a massive wedge when they're shown up to be incapable of doing their job (this includes being head of a bank that goes bust ... for whatever reason).

Its the price you pay.. the unwanted consequence is that you end up paying-off the incompetant idiot when things go wrong..

the upside is you are able to attract better managers in general.

I

Yellow Peril

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

TheStone wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

But that's justification for higher pay because the job is difficult and insecure. Not justification for being paid a massive wedge when they're shown up to be incapable of doing their job (this includes being head of a bank that goes bust ... for whatever reason).

Its the price you pay.. the unwanted consequence is that you end up paying-off the incompetant idiot when things go wrong..

the upside is you are able to attract better managers in general.

I

As you seem to know what you are talking about can you explain how being replaced in a job by someone else is redundancy? Man with job of DG replaced by another man to be DG where is the redundancy? just askin'

mhj999

Yellow Peril wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

TheStone wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

But that's justification for higher pay because the job is difficult and insecure. Not justification for being paid a massive wedge when they're shown up to be incapable of doing their job (this includes being head of a bank that goes bust ... for whatever reason).

Its the price you pay.. the unwanted consequence is that you end up paying-off the incompetant idiot when things go wrong..

the upside is you are able to attract better managers in general.

I

As you seem to know what you are talking about can you explain how being replaced in a job by someone else is redundancy? Man with job of DG replaced by another man to be DG where is the redundancy? just askin'

2 types of redundancy - people and job/role - in this case the person was made redundant due to underperformance and not the role

CiB

Anyway. I'm not applying. It gets to be a dispiriting being turned down for job after job. And I should know; I've been turned down for the manager's job at Everton, Spurs, Leicester (three times!!!), Arsenal, Villa, and Man U even though Fergie was still at the helm and showed no signs of moving on. Maybe my carefully detailed plan to flog any decent players and get them into the Conference inside 5 seasons wasn't the way forward that they had in mind.

Apply for top jobs? Waste of time. Someone who's not up to it can have a free run as far as I'm concerned.

capt_slog

mhj999 wrote:

2 types of redundancy - people and job/role - in this case the person was made redundant due to underperformance and not the role

Don't we normally call that "getting fired" or something similar?

Like YellowPeril, I've always understood that redundancy is when your job no longer exists; this has been the case the two times that it's happened to me.

verylonglegs

Capt Slog wrote:

mhj999 wrote:

2 types of redundancy - people and job/role - in this case the person was made redundant due to underperformance and not the role

Don't we normally call that "getting fired" or something similar?

Like YellowPeril, I've always understood that redundancy is when your job no longer exists; this has been the case the two times that it's happened to me.

Depends on your pay bracket then according to some here.

Yellow Peril

mhj999 wrote:

Yellow Peril wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

TheStone wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

But that's justification for higher pay because the job is difficult and insecure. Not justification for being paid a massive wedge when they're shown up to be incapable of doing their job (this includes being head of a bank that goes bust ... for whatever reason).

Its the price you pay.. the unwanted consequence is that you end up paying-off the incompetant idiot when things go wrong..

the upside is you are able to attract better managers in general.

I

As you seem to know what you are talking about can you explain how being replaced in a job by someone else is redundancy? Man with job of DG replaced by another man to be DG where is the redundancy? just askin'

2 types of redundancy - people and job/role - in this case the person was made redundant due to underperformance and not the role

Really?

Perhaps redundancy has been re-defined so that football managers don't feel so bad when they are sacked.

cornerblock

Bit like when a player has been 'rested'. No, you've been dropped.

nathancom

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

TheStone wrote:

ALIHISGREAT wrote:

There is a lot of ignorance on the issue of CEO and senior management compensation and it annoys me when people bring it up and rant about it when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

The risks of taking the job are great because In effect you are responsible for the actions of 1000s of incompetent fools in the organization which you head... and you have little control over their rogue actions.

Hence you could be the best manager for the job but a scandal will come along and force you out regardless of your prior performance or if the failure was your fault.

Similar principles apply when you look at other performance areas - if the economy crashes then you'll be kicked out for a fresh new face even if the decline in performance is 100% due to uncontrollable and unavoidable external factors.

So due to this risk of 'unfair' redundancy, senior management get a nice big pay-off written into their contract which offsets it.

But that's justification for higher pay because the job is difficult and insecure. Not justification for being paid a massive wedge when they're shown up to be incapable of doing their job (this includes being head of a bank that goes bust ... for whatever reason).

Its the price you pay.. the unwanted consequence is that you end up paying-off the incompetant idiot when things go wrong..

the upside is you are able to attract better managers in general.

I

Where has a correlation between high compensation and increased performance at CEO level been shown? It certainly did not occur at the banks; it has simply been a falsehood bandied around by top management to excuse their rapacious extraction of wealth from corporations. It has then been picked up by those like yourself who have a probably don't work in top management and are maybe even not in work, still at University but plan to chase inordinate wealth themselves.