Skip to main content

Paid Richly For Failure


Yet another of Socialist Courier's never-ending exposure of greedy capitalist pigs with snouts in the trough .


Former Scottish Media Group chief executive Andrew Flanagan was handed a pay-off of £831,024 after being ousted last year. This comprised £649,600 in compensation for loss of office, the Scottish Media Group's annual report reveals, together with the release of awards worth £181,424 under the company's long-term incentive and performance share plans.


He earned more than £1.1 million from SMG in 2006 after working only six-and-a-half months of the year before stepping down on July 18. This included £257,000 in salary for the period, plus benefits of £50,000 comprising car, medical insurance and pension supplement. On top of that, his severance deal included a payment of £555,600, representing 12 months' salary and benefits in lieu of notice. Surprisingly perhaps, he also got a £44,000 bonus. A further £50,000 was added to Flanagan's compensation package because he agreed to waive all statutory and further legal rights against the company.


Other executive with SMG to receive a golden handshake was former television chief Donald Emslie, who left last month after eight months as acting chief executive . He was paid a total of £361,135 last year, including a £24,000 performance bonus. The total included £45,000 for the extra responsibilities he took on when Flanagan left. Emslie also received LTIPs with a cash value of £173,775. He also was paid one year's severance still to be announced .


And were those pay-offs justly deserved rewards for success ? Hardly !


New in-coming chairman Richard Findlay slammed the predecessor board's strategy as fatally flawed and badly executed, leading to "excess debt, a lack of focus, instability in the leadership, dissatisfaction among the shareholders and poor staff morale".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…