Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grundz wrote:STFU, He obviously finally got his just reward for a lifetime of backbreaking heavy labor!

I wonder if I'm the only one in this thread who considered this guy probably worked for years for one of those companies before the merger...

But that's silly. It would make the very content of the article disingenuous. That never happens.

Sounds like it was part of the merger deal. His company is acquired and he retires as part of that.

Unless you're a shareholder its not your business. Having said that, I'll take 10%. I'm not greedy.

n0t_u wrote:Send one out every year to all of them.

Asking them to send you money because it's your birthday

And you want a ring, a sepcific gold ring. It is precious to you.

Horst wrote:There should be some kind of crazy USA vigilante group that goes around killing people like this.

I think we just started one.

LordofHats wrote:

Grundz wrote:STFU, He obviously finally got his just reward for a lifetime of backbreaking heavy labor!

I wonder if I'm the only one in this thread who considered this guy probably worked for years for one of those companies before the merger...

But that's silly. It would make the very content of the article disingenuous. That never happens.

He did. 17 years. The $44.4 Million was basically his "commision" for letting the company get bought out. A pretty nice commission for letting someone else buy out the company. Does everyone who helped build the company get a piece of the pie?

I very much doubt it. Nothing in that area anyways. These things make me a bit sick

Oh Duke Power. Why you trollin' my area?

Easy E wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Grundz wrote:STFU, He obviously finally got his just reward for a lifetime of backbreaking heavy labor!

I wonder if I'm the only one in this thread who considered this guy probably worked for years for one of those companies before the merger...

But that's silly. It would make the very content of the article disingenuous. That never happens.

He did. 17 years. The $44.4 Million was basically his "commision" for letting the company get bought out. A pretty nice commission for letting someone else buy out the company. Does everyone who helped build the company get a piece of the pie?

Actually it looks like ~$34 million of that sum is from his stock options, which he's allowed to now exercise based on the conditions of the merger. 'Everyone who helped build the company' would likely own a stake, or have negotiated a wage acceptable to both parties (stock ownership can be more rewarding, but is also much riskier and doesn't pay anything until you turn your paper profits into cash by selling your stake).

The ~7 million lump sum is probably what would be considered his 'sell out' commission, although I don't know why that's considered heinous. Assuming that he was leading a successful company (someone wants to buy it afterall), then that probably represents X number of years of his salary that he would have made if he'd simply kept his job. To not be an obstructionist ass, the combined board is willing to give him that money and his good faith option so that the merger is as seamless as possible.

CEO gets a nice check up front and can cash out of his paper (or not, he could just keep it), the current board gets a nice boost to their share price, and the buying company gets to expand ownership of valuable assets.

sourclams wrote:Actually it looks like ~$34 million of that sum is from his stock options, which he's allowed to now exercise based on the conditions of the merger. 'Everyone who helped build the company' would likely own a stake, or have negotiated a wage acceptable to both parties (stock ownership can be more rewarding, but is also much riskier and doesn't pay anything until you turn your paper profits into cash by selling your stake).

The ~7 million lump sum is probably what would be considered his 'sell out' commission, although I don't know why that's considered heinous. Assuming that he was leading a successful company (someone wants to buy it afterall), then that probably represents X number of years of his salary that he would have made if he'd simply kept his job. To not be an obstructionist ass, the combined board is willing to give him that money and his good faith option so that the merger is as seamless as possible.

CEO gets a nice check up front and can cash out of his paper (or not, he could just keep it), the current board gets a nice boost to their share price, and the buying company gets to expand ownership of valuable assets.

I actually agree with what you wrote and have no real problem with what went down.

I would also like to think that everyone who gets the boot will also gets a severance package equal to several years of being on the job. After all this was a merger. Chances are there will be redundancies.

But, the realist in me says those people won't get an equivalnet deal, i.e. a severance package equal to the same amount of time on the job as the CEO got and the ability to exercise stock options (because they probably don't have any) within their retirement accounts.

Leigen_Zero wrote:

p_gray99 wrote:Ok, he's worked for quite a while doing reasonable work. And some CEOs make far more money. But that still doesn't make it anywhere near fair.

Since when has capitalism been about fairness?

Admittedly it's not like there is a decent alternative, but in my infinitesimal knowledge of economics and big business I am yet to see how it is a fair system.

We had capitalism in the 1970s, when average CEO pay was only 10 times that of a face worker, not 100 times.

I'm a terrorist? Seriously? Not an insurgent? Think of it as Western Style Justice...dang I guess I have to find a high caliber horse to slap

Kilkrazy wrote:We had capitalism in the 1970s, when average CEO pay was only 10 times that of a face worker, not 100 times.

If only.

Capitalism is kind of killing itself when it concentrates so much buying power into so few individuals instead of allowing for wider distribution, so that the money can flow back into the economy. It's just a slow, drawn-out death, but the statistics regarding a growing gap between poor and rich as well as stalling economies are speaking for themselves.

Lynata wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:We had capitalism in the 1970s, when average CEO pay was only 10 times that of a face worker, not 100 times.

If only.

Capitalism is kind of killing itself when it concentrates so much buying power into so few individuals instead of allowing for wider distribution, so that the money can flow back into the economy. It's just a slow, drawn-out death, but the statistics regarding a growing gap between poor and rich as well as stalling economies are speaking for themselves.

Just wondering, where did you get that graph? It doesn't look amazingly reliable, being based off so few results. Also, it doesn't strech up to the recession, which is the part I'm most interested in: surely that would be when either a massive difference or a far smaller difference would emerge?

:0 unfair!