Do you have examples of organisations having someone be one of two finalists for the top job, then when someone else was selected, they decided to reorg and have the person leave two weeks into a notice period when she has since claimed she wanted to stay?
What has her desire to stay got to do with it?:D
I am sorry if you cant comprehend the idea that organisations restructure and that it may have been considered the best decision to move her on for a number of reasons.
You just seem to want to make up stories to support your preconceptions.
Have you figured out an explanation and basis yet for your previous deductions in the preceding posts?
So no-one has yet explained why Peter Fincham got £500,000 when he resigned of his own volition and there was no contractual obligation on the BBC to pay it.Is this normal procedure in private industry ?
So no-one has yet explained why Peter Fincham got £500,000 when he resigned of his own volition and there was no contractual obligation on the BBC to pay it.Is this normal procedure in private industry ?
You'd only be likely to ignore it ....
But, be that as it may, it was only five days ago that Tony Hall asked for more details of that specific payoff, so it is unlikely that anyone here would be more clued up on those details than Mr Hall himself was on the 25th July:
BBC's Tony Hall demands briefing on Peter Fincham's Crowngate payoff
theguardian.com, Thursday 25 July 2013 16.12 BST
The BBC director general is seeking more details of a previously undisclosed £500,000 payoff to a former BBC1 controller who resigned over the so-called "Crowngate" affair.
Tony Hall has asked to be briefed on the circumstances of the payout to Peter Fincham, who resigned in October 2007 over a documentary trailer that misrepresented the Queen.
The director general is expected to be told who was responsible for approving the severance payment and whether it went beyond the figure to which Fincham was contractually entitled.
The BBC may not have been required legally to publish the figure but I believe it was their policy to do so.If it was a correct and proper payment then, of course, there is nothing to hide. Tony Hall's interest suggests that may not be the case.
The BBC may not have been required legally to publish the figure but I believe it was their policy to do so.If it was a correct and proper payment then, of course, there is nothing to hide. Tony Hall's interest suggests that may not be the case.
No, all that it suggests at the moment is that Tony Hall requires more details, presumably as he needs to be on top of the issue, and that undisclosed information might (or might not) point towards a breach in guidelines.. Better to be fully briefed and properly informed.
Whether it was a proper & correct payment would then need to be considered in the light of all of those facts (and the circumstances around the payment).
No, all that it suggests at the moment is that Tony Hall requires more details, presumably as he needs to be on top of the issue, and that undisclosed information might (or might not) point towards a breach in guidelines.. Better to be fully briefed and properly informed.
Whether it was a proper & correct payment would then need to be considered in the light of all of those facts (and the circumstances around the payment).
Do you have examples of organisations having someone be one of two finalists for the top job, then when someone else was selected, they decided to reorg and have the person leave two weeks into a notice period when she has since claimed she wanted to stay?
It is hugely common for a new CEO to get rid of people at the top and build a new team, just like a new football manager with want to change players.
Just how often do new CEOs shake things up? On average, an external CEO shakes up 63% of their senior team, and an internal hire, 55%, according to research from RHR.
(chart)
If you're holding anyone of those senior positions when a new CEO comes in, better start polishing that Linkedin profile.
Isn't it obvious that a new CEO will want to change the team?
So no-one has yet explained why Peter Fincham got £500,000 when he resigned of his own volition and there was no contractual obligation on the BBC to pay it.Is this normal procedure in private industry ?
Is that "resigned of his own volition" like Andy Duncan "resigned of his own volition" from Channel 4?
Didn't a FOI response from C4 reveal they actually fired him and paid him a settlement to make sue he didn't sue?
How many times does it have to be said that when it is announced an exec "resigns" there is a very good chance he was forced out. And under employment law if you are forced out of a job without following a long procedure and without very specific reasons you are entitled to sue for compensation.
And the NAO, the BBC, and just about everyone other than a few here.
Except you claim the NAO said things that you have never managed to provide a link to, such as "the BBC paid out more than they needed to".... :rolleyes:
The NAO also accepted that paying someone a payoff to get an agreement that rules out future legal action is reasonable, something you seem to have a problem with.
Isn't it obvious that a new CEO will want to change the team?
Based on his 54 days as DG George Entwistle hardly comes across as someone who had a clue about managing a large organisation. Maybe that was the problem - he was always the wrong person for the job. It also smacks of "let's give her a big pay-off and let her leave straight away to find something new", as opposed to settling in and making the best long-term decisions for the BBC.
I have certainly seen in some of the companies I have worked for the type of behaviour mentioned in the article you posted - "I'm the new sheriff in town and I'm going to make my mark", followed by firing some long-term staff who do good work in the trenches, just for the sake of shaking things up. Then the new guy leaves after 18 months, after making things worse than they were before.
Anyway, the MP's felt it appropriate to drag the BBC before a committee and ask them some of the same sorts of questions being asked on this thread, and Tony Hall and his team have effectively admitted the past practices were at times inappropriate. That's good enough for me.
GE downfall was that he had no deputy ....
And thus when the unexpected happened had to do it all himself ......
And with that it could only get worse ... And it did.
He was very much aware of the issues of the delegated BBC and was trying to tie it tighter ..
A lot easier now with NBH ....
But there were pressures .... And CT was the fall out from these ...
The pity is that the PAC has not hauled the right people in front if them yet ..
Leaving the two lords to answer questions which one whole were not to do with their roles ..
GE downfall was that he had no deputy ....
And thus when the unexpected happened had to do it all himself ......
And with that it could only get worse ... And it did.
He was very much aware of the issues of the delegated BBC and was trying to tie it tighter ..
A lot easier now with NBH ....
But there were pressures .... And CT was the fall out from these ...
The pity is that the PAC has not hauled the right people in front if them yet ..
Leaving the two lords to answer questions which one whole were not to do with their roles ..
One of the ironies being that Caroline Thomson, who had been de facto deputy, was told she could leave within a month of him starting. In hindsight they should probably have tried to keep her, maybe give her some new responsibilities, to make up for not getting the top job.
Although CT May have been disappointed not to be the BBC first Female DG ...
from what I have read and know she was very keen to help the new DG with reshaping the BBC
- as after all she had been heading most of the DQF cutbacks
and similar things making the BBC Back office more efficient over most of her time as COO.
She probably was the best to know the BBC as a whole from the inside - ....
and was the architect of what the BBC could afford in the LF negotiation.
So as GE was trying get one BBC ... she seemed ideal to do this and was mindful of Zarin Patels departure ....
Except you claim the NAO said things that you have never managed to provide a link to, such as "the BBC paid out more than they needed to".... :rolleyes:
The NAO also accepted that paying someone a payoff to get an agreement that rules out future legal action is reasonable, something you seem to have a problem with.
Being pedantic about words doesn't change the fact that the BBC paid out more than it needed to in some of the sample of cases the NAO looked at, as the BBC has admitted.
I don't know why you always defend huge sums of cash to people who already have plenty, and yet get so upset at the likes of school dinner ladies getting a pension of about £4,000 a year after a lifetimes service. It's a bizarre stance.
Being pedantic about words doesn't change the fact that the BBC paid out more than it needed to in some of the sample of cases the NAO looked at, as the BBC has admitted.
I don't know why you always defend huge sums of cash to people who already have plenty, and yet get so upset at the likes of school dinner ladies getting a pension of about £4,000 a year after a lifetimes service. It's a bizarre stance.
Is "pedantic about words" another way of saying "they never said what you claimed they said"? :rolleyes: The NAO did not say the BBC paid "more than they needed" and paying more than the contracted amount is common and the NAO accepted that can be justified and even accepted the reason the BBC gave. Their criticism of the BBC is for not documenting the legal advice that led them to come to that agreement and the details of how they came to decide the exact figure. You have been asked again and again to show where they said the BBC "paid more than they needed to" and have never been able to do so, but still claim that is what they meant.
And when have I ever criticised dinner ladies for getting a pension? Link? Or is that just another claim you will never be able to back up?
The bottom line is that all the parties involved have conceded licence money was paid to some departing executives when it wasn't necessary to do so.The exact wording is irrelevant.And still the BBC cannot discover who authorised this.
The bottom line is that all the parties involved have conceded licence money was paid to some departing executives when it wasn't necessary to do so.The exact wording is irrelevant.And still the BBC cannot discover who authorised this.
Tha NAO have said no such thing and the exact wording is very relevant! The NAO accepted that paying more than a contract specified was reasonable to get agreement not to pursue legal action. Their criticism was not documenting the reasons in each specific case.
You can claim "The exact wording is irrelevant" as much as you want. You can't claim they said something that they didn't say.
Is "pedantic about words" another way of saying "they never said what you claimed they said"? :rolleyes: The NAO did not say the BBC paid "more than they needed" and paying more than the contracted amount is common and the NAO accepted that can be justified and even accepted the reason the BBC gave. Their criticism of the BBC is for not documenting the legal advice that led them to come to that agreement and the details of how they came to decide the exact figure. You have been asked again and again to show where they said the BBC "paid more than they needed to" and have never been able to do so, but still claim that is what they meant.
From the original Guardian report:
Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: "The BBC has too often breached its own already generous policies on severance payments. Weak governance arrangements have led to payments that exceeded contractual requirements and put public trust at risk."
Sounds like more than just failure to document legal advice to me.
The post of controller, BBC 4, is to be axed.BBC2 controller Janice Hadlow will take over responsibility and there will be an editor of BBC4 reporting to her. This follows the departure of the previous incumbent to ITV.
Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: "The BBC has too often breached its own already generous policies on severance payments. Weak governance arrangements have led to payments that exceeded contractual requirements and put public trust at risk."
Sounds like more than just failure to document legal advice to me.
"Exceded contractual requirements" is not the same as "more than they needed to pay" when that employee has grounds to sue. The NAO report mentioned that explanation and accepted it.
"Exceded contractual requirements" is not the same as "more than they needed to pay" when that employee has grounds to sue. The NAO report mentioned that explanation and accepted it.
I suppose the MPs should stop wasting everyone's time investigating and read this thread then.
It would have been nice if the PAC had interviewed those who are responsible in behalf of the viewers .....
In in reality there are 11 cases which really need explanation ... But the PAC did not see those
And some may have very legitimate explanations,,,
I suppose the MPs should stop wasting everyone's time investigating and read this thread then.
Problem solved, nothing to see here, move along.
Seeing as the PAC seemed unaware of the reasons why the Trust operates at arm's length from exec remuneration matters, and that it was seemingly unaware of the non-exec roles on the Executive Remuneration Committee, that might not seem such a bad idea!
Comments
What has her desire to stay got to do with it?:D
I am sorry if you cant comprehend the idea that organisations restructure and that it may have been considered the best decision to move her on for a number of reasons.
You just seem to want to make up stories to support your preconceptions.
Have you figured out an explanation and basis yet for your previous deductions in the preceding posts?
I do wonder if some of these posters have any actual real world experience of work, companies or their restructuring/re-sizing etc.
It's only a couple of individuals who refuse to take on board the explanations, and you'll never get through to them.
You'd only be likely to ignore it ....
But, be that as it may, it was only five days ago that Tony Hall asked for more details of that specific payoff, so it is unlikely that anyone here would be more clued up on those details than Mr Hall himself was on the 25th July:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/25/bbc-tony-hall-peter-fincham-payoff
Whether it was a proper & correct payment would then need to be considered in the light of all of those facts (and the circumstances around the payment).
Smoke and mirrors. x.
It is hugely common for a new CEO to get rid of people at the top and build a new team, just like a new football manager with want to change players.
These Are The People Most Likely To Get Canned If A New CEO Arrives
Isn't it obvious that a new CEO will want to change the team?
Is that "resigned of his own volition" like Andy Duncan "resigned of his own volition" from Channel 4?
Didn't a FOI response from C4 reveal they actually fired him and paid him a settlement to make sue he didn't sue?
How many times does it have to be said that when it is announced an exec "resigns" there is a very good chance he was forced out. And under employment law if you are forced out of a job without following a long procedure and without very specific reasons you are entitled to sue for compensation.
And the NAO, the BBC, and just about everyone other than a few here.
Except you claim the NAO said things that you have never managed to provide a link to, such as "the BBC paid out more than they needed to".... :rolleyes:
The NAO also accepted that paying someone a payoff to get an agreement that rules out future legal action is reasonable, something you seem to have a problem with.
Based on his 54 days as DG George Entwistle hardly comes across as someone who had a clue about managing a large organisation. Maybe that was the problem - he was always the wrong person for the job. It also smacks of "let's give her a big pay-off and let her leave straight away to find something new", as opposed to settling in and making the best long-term decisions for the BBC.
I have certainly seen in some of the companies I have worked for the type of behaviour mentioned in the article you posted - "I'm the new sheriff in town and I'm going to make my mark", followed by firing some long-term staff who do good work in the trenches, just for the sake of shaking things up. Then the new guy leaves after 18 months, after making things worse than they were before.
Anyway, the MP's felt it appropriate to drag the BBC before a committee and ask them some of the same sorts of questions being asked on this thread, and Tony Hall and his team have effectively admitted the past practices were at times inappropriate. That's good enough for me.
And thus when the unexpected happened had to do it all himself ......
And with that it could only get worse ... And it did.
He was very much aware of the issues of the delegated BBC and was trying to tie it tighter ..
A lot easier now with NBH ....
But there were pressures .... And CT was the fall out from these ...
The pity is that the PAC has not hauled the right people in front if them yet ..
Leaving the two lords to answer questions which one whole were not to do with their roles ..
One of the ironies being that Caroline Thomson, who had been de facto deputy, was told she could leave within a month of him starting. In hindsight they should probably have tried to keep her, maybe give her some new responsibilities, to make up for not getting the top job.
from what I have read and know she was very keen to help the new DG with reshaping the BBC
- as after all she had been heading most of the DQF cutbacks
and similar things making the BBC Back office more efficient over most of her time as COO.
She probably was the best to know the BBC as a whole from the inside - ....
and was the architect of what the BBC could afford in the LF negotiation.
So as GE was trying get one BBC ... she seemed ideal to do this and was mindful of Zarin Patels departure ....
Being pedantic about words doesn't change the fact that the BBC paid out more than it needed to in some of the sample of cases the NAO looked at, as the BBC has admitted.
I don't know why you always defend huge sums of cash to people who already have plenty, and yet get so upset at the likes of school dinner ladies getting a pension of about £4,000 a year after a lifetimes service. It's a bizarre stance.
Is "pedantic about words" another way of saying "they never said what you claimed they said"? :rolleyes: The NAO did not say the BBC paid "more than they needed" and paying more than the contracted amount is common and the NAO accepted that can be justified and even accepted the reason the BBC gave. Their criticism of the BBC is for not documenting the legal advice that led them to come to that agreement and the details of how they came to decide the exact figure. You have been asked again and again to show where they said the BBC "paid more than they needed to" and have never been able to do so, but still claim that is what they meant.
And when have I ever criticised dinner ladies for getting a pension? Link? Or is that just another claim you will never be able to back up?
Tha NAO have said no such thing and the exact wording is very relevant! The NAO accepted that paying more than a contract specified was reasonable to get agreement not to pursue legal action. Their criticism was not documenting the reasons in each specific case.
You can claim "The exact wording is irrelevant" as much as you want. You can't claim they said something that they didn't say.
From the original Guardian report:
Amyas Morse, head of the NAO, said: "The BBC has too often breached its own already generous policies on severance payments. Weak governance arrangements have led to payments that exceeded contractual requirements and put public trust at risk."
Sounds like more than just failure to document legal advice to me.
www.bbc.co.uk/ariel
"Exceded contractual requirements" is not the same as "more than they needed to pay" when that employee has grounds to sue. The NAO report mentioned that explanation and accepted it.
I suppose the MPs should stop wasting everyone's time investigating and read this thread then.
Problem solved, nothing to see here, move along.
In in reality there are 11 cases which really need explanation ... But the PAC did not see those
And some may have very legitimate explanations,,,
Seeing as the PAC seemed unaware of the reasons why the Trust operates at arm's length from exec remuneration matters, and that it was seemingly unaware of the non-exec roles on the Executive Remuneration Committee, that might not seem such a bad idea!