Author Topic: Super-Twat  (Read 392054 times)

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3625 on: June 27, 2019, 06:48:08 pm »
All this stuff can't be true, because Slithy Gove said BRITAIN is more tolerant of The Others than anywhere else in Europe.  And he wouldn't lie to us.  Would he?
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3626 on: June 27, 2019, 07:19:36 pm »
...Slithy Gove...

As if by magic, we were back on topic.
To ride the Windcheetah, first, you must embrace the cantilever...

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3627 on: June 27, 2019, 07:48:12 pm »
To his minor credit Gove did slag off Aron Banks when he had a nasty go at Angela Eagle earlier in the week.
Not fast & rarely furious

tweeting occasional in(s)anities as andrewxclark

Riggers

  • Mine's a pipe, er… pint!
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3628 on: June 28, 2019, 02:33:12 pm »
Gove always has that look. The startled expression of somebody caught doing something he shouldn't. Like running this country.
Certainly never seen cycling south of Sussex

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3629 on: June 28, 2019, 10:48:12 pm »
Damian Bates, Trump apologist.

Surely if you 'stabilise' dunes by planting marram grass you've stopped them moving, and therefore shouldn't complain when their designation as an SSSI is removed because they're no longer 'dynamic' because they don't, er, move.

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3630 on: June 30, 2019, 10:29:11 am »
Bloody Stupid.
AGEN.
This time for rejecting responsibility for the British woman who is locked up in Iran. It seems to have slipped his mind that he was the Foreign Secretary at the time of her being gaoled, and it was his interventions that totally failed to have any positive impact whatsoever. 
Sorting my life out, one shed at a time.

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3631 on: July 01, 2019, 09:43:03 am »
It wasn't that they failed to have any positive impact, they had an actual very negative impact, since he announced she was there to teach journalism which is just about the worse possible thing to say considering the circumstances. And also untrue, but he's a busy man and can't be expected to pay attention to a briefing before he opens his mouth and, despite holding the title 'foreign secretary' appeared to have no knowledge of foreign policy or geopolitics in the region. I mean, seriously, don't we already have Priti Patel for that.

And the mealy-mouthed motherfucker still can't cop to even the briefest wheedling apology.
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3632 on: July 01, 2019, 02:03:00 pm »
Damian Bates, Trump apologist.

Surely if you 'stabilise' dunes by planting marram grass you've stopped them moving, and therefore shouldn't complain when their designation as an SSSI is removed because they're no longer 'dynamic' because they don't, er, move.

I heard that interview. What an arse. "It is only 5% of the dunes"
Followed by an actual, you know, expert, explaining that the golf course covers 30% of the dunes . . .
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3633 on: July 02, 2019, 01:01:00 pm »
Piers "Morgan" Moron, the colossal bellend's colossal bellend, is at it again.  Seems the USAnian womens foopball team are "arrogant".  Yes, you did read that right.
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3634 on: July 03, 2019, 01:37:36 pm »
Andrea Orcel who is suing Santander for 100 million Euros. I understand they offered him the job but he wanted 50 million just for 'signing -on'. How much do you need?

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3635 on: July 03, 2019, 02:44:25 pm »
There's a bit more to it than that, but it looks like most places reporting on the lawsuit are paywalled. However, from what I've been reading from earlier this year when the job offer was withdrawn, you could knock a few zeroes off the monetary amounts mentioned and Orcel would be a bit of an arse all the same:

Quote
... according to the early news reports, Orcel and Santander had both presumed that he would get some sort of “good leaver” status with respect to his enormous accrued deferred pay. This presumption was based on the fact that Santander doesn’t compete directly with UBS and has been a very good investment banking client over the years.  Unfortunately, it turned out to be wishful thinking. UBS demanded the full gardening leave period in Mr Orcel’s contract and uncategorically ruled out allowing Orcel to collect all his deferred bonuses. These were substantial - at around €50m.  Santander might have been prepared to compensate Orcel up to €20m, but felt that €50m was an amount that simply couldn’t be justified to their stakeholders. Orcel himself wasn’t prepared to walk away from all that money in order to get the job, and so the deal collapsed.

If this is all there is to this story, then it looks very much like one of Europe’s most successful investment bankers of the last few decades has made some rookie errors.  Literally the first instruction in Leaving Your Investment Banking Job 101 is that if something is important enough to jeopardize the move, you need to get it locked down, in writing, before you resign.  The details of UBS’s deferred compensation scheme should have been known to Mr Orcel (and to his lawyer) and if they’re like most other schemes, the starting point is likely to be that if you leave, you lose. If Orcel assumed that the rules would be waived for him because he’s so important (not entirely impossible given what people have said about his management style) then well, he’s just found out what happens when you assume.

Having made that error, though, why let it destroy the deal? The clawback details of Mr Orcel’s compensation package aren’t public, but it’s not usually the case that you can get the money back if your job offer falls through.  It seems to have always been assumed that Orcel would sacrifice some of the money in order to make the move happen – and to trade UBS share price exposure for Santander with the hope of making more money in the long term.  It seems that he’s done the one thing that experienced M&A bankers usually tell their clients not to do; he’s let a strategically vital transaction get away because of price. After all, fifty million euros is a lot of money to most of us, but Orcel was paid $30m in a single year once when he was at Merrill Lynch.  Seems like it’s harder to do your own mega-deals than to advise someone else.

https://news.efinancialcareers.com/se-en/331651/andrea-orcel-santander-move
Hell is empty, and all of the devils are here.

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3636 on: July 03, 2019, 03:02:02 pm »
Or perhaps these people simply aren't as good at their jobs as their stratospheric salaries and compensation packages might suggest?
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3637 on: July 03, 2019, 03:20:36 pm »
AIUI the stock market is largely a betting syndicate and the results are often the same. The more dispassionate observers will tell you that long term, tracking funds consistently outperform fund managers, and any superstars are in fact just lucky bastards.   
Sorting my life out, one shed at a time.

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3638 on: July 03, 2019, 04:49:46 pm »
Despite dozens of studies, there's not one that has ever found even a vague correlation between salary and compensation packages for executives and any measure of a business's performance.
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3639 on: July 03, 2019, 09:45:38 pm »
Despite dozens of studies, there's not one that has ever found even a vague correlation between salary and compensation packages for executives and any measure of a business's performance.
Given the payoffs I’ve seen some of those I’ve seen fail have received, that doesn’t surprise me at all.
Sorting my life out, one shed at a time.

Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3640 on: July 04, 2019, 08:13:25 am »
Despite dozens of studies, there's not one that has ever found even a vague correlation between salary and compensation packages for executives and any measure of a business's performance.
Is there a correlation between the salary/compensation package and the size of the executive's ego?
<i>Marmite slave</i>

citoyen

  • Cat 6 Racer
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3641 on: July 19, 2019, 01:28:28 pm »
My former colleague, who I only remain friends with on facebook to remind me that there are people who really do think like this...



Sometimes I think he's just trolling to wind up his liberal lefty mates, but no, he actually means it. He's not even that stupid, he's just the product of a classic 80s West Midlands working-class Tory upbringing. Fortunately, going by the responses to his post, he has friends who are willing to call him out. Personally, I just can't face getting involved.

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: Super-Twat
« Reply #3642 on: Yesterday at 05:10:59 am »
I've seen about half a dozen Quitlers, hamsteaks and quasi-literate biffers trot this one out.  When I tell 'em a former employer started its Y2K project in 1992 they usually go a bit quiet, though sometimes I have to point out that checking a few million lines of code for a single poxy merchant bank is rather less daunting than preparing an entire country for a leap into the unknown.
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime