Ms Jackson refusses to go [Archive]

YesTAM

7th May 2007, 20:54

She is a narcissist, they will have to pry her fingers off the steering wheel, same with Dixon.

As has been demonstrated before, since they cannot empathise with human beings, they are incapable of understanding what market sentiment looks like, nor the fact that 50% of shareholders (or is it share numbers?) think the bid was too low, and do not have any trust in the Board.

She must also realise, as must Dixon, that their careers are effectively over.

The most telling point has been the behaviour of Mr. Sydney Heyman(?), the hedge fund owner who failed to deliver his acceptance for 5% of the QF shares. If the news reports are correct he wanted the bid to go ahead, but didn't want to part with his own shares to make it happen. In other words, he wanted the mugs to sell out while the smart money stayed in - what does that tell you??????????

I notice all the press are tiptoeing around "the elephant in the room" when discussing the APA bid, and to keep in Danny's good books, so will I.

My guess is APA is trying desperately to find some point of leverage to save their bid, and if necessary they will go all the way to the High Court - and quickly.

I wish somebody could drive a stake through the heart of APA, but I guess its pretty hard finding where to drive it in when dealing with "merchant bankers":yuk:

priapism

7th May 2007, 22:16

I'd rather see some one run her through with the sword than her falling on it voluntarily.

Mobi LAME

7th May 2007, 22:26

Now if we could manage to mass produce the hide of these people and use it in the skins of aircraft the producers of carbon fibre would go broke overnight.
It's as tough as all get out, absolutely impervious to any known force and seems to get tougher as it ages. The only problem I see with it is it seems to attract SPIVs!

RedTBar

7th May 2007, 22:42

She might be saying this publicly but in private she must be wondering if she will survive this.If APA's appeal fails then you would have to say her position is tenuous.

Syd eng

7th May 2007, 23:47

She must be worried now as APA have just officially said it is over.

2p!ssed2drive

7th May 2007, 23:55

... a song comes to mind.

... "Sorry Ms Jackson, (OOOH!) I am for real".............

I think it was by Outkast :ok:

Buster Hyman

8th May 2007, 00:04

Considering the bonuses & wage she's been on, I really don't think she be down at Centrelink soon...therefore, I doubt she'll be all that worried.

If she does go, there'll be plenty of other Boards that would employ her...:hmm:

QF MAINT OUTSOURCED

8th May 2007, 01:40

There Might Be Other Boards,but There Wouldn't Be To Many Share Holders That Would Be Happy,that's The Whole Point

satmstr

8th May 2007, 01:41

i assume you are talking about this song 2pissed2drive , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Vy8PywZTM :ok:

perfect song to play in the board room, now we need one for the others

Islander Jock

8th May 2007, 02:19

Maybe this would be close to what is going on outside the board room now :E www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuvB7j9n-II

MUNT

8th May 2007, 02:59

As in the SMH, the APA "its not dead, its pining!":}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

Next Generation

8th May 2007, 05:56

"its not dead, its pining!"

They stun easily! :ok:

Taildragger67

8th May 2007, 10:44

This APA caper has, hopefully, "... fcukin' snuffed it"... :ok:

No SAR No Details

8th May 2007, 12:25

The only reason this airline is still upright is that someone nailed it to its perch.

Taildragger67

8th May 2007, 12:36

Yes, this company wouldn't go 'voom' if you took 4 billion dollars out of it... :E

No SAR No Details

8th May 2007, 21:41

Its got beautiful plumage though, The Australian Red tailed parrot.

hoss

9th May 2007, 08:12

Islander Jock, I can just imagine 'The Chaser' team doing something like this outside Qantas Central:ok: .

Islander Jock

9th May 2007, 10:18

hoss,

I didn't think of that but what a great idea.

something along the lines of
Jackson; "I'm not dead"
body dumper; "you're not fooliing anyone you know"
Jackson; "i feel better"
cart man; "look I can't take her like that - it's illegal"
body dumper; "well can't you wait for a bit"
cart man; "nah, gotta get over to Jetstar"

Taildragger67

9th May 2007, 10:30

Jock,

:ok: :D

With all their changes of tack, the jokers at APA could be seen to have started out as the businessmen who say "Ni!" but then ended up as the businessmen "... who say... who until recently said 'Ni!'"

The Bullwinkle

9th May 2007, 11:13

I blow my nose in your general direction!

Taildragger67

9th May 2007, 11:19

Bullwinkle,

Get it right.

It's "I blow my nose at you, so-called [insert name of Qantas or APA executive], you and all your silly [insert desired anti-APA epithet]".... then later, "I f@rt in your general direction. Your mother was [insert desired insult directed at a particular female] and your father smelled of [insert something distasteful]". :}

The Bullwinkle

9th May 2007, 11:29

Christ, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition! :E

RedTBar

9th May 2007, 23:58

Wed May 9, 4:26 AM ET
SYDNEY (AFP) - Qantas boss Geoff Dixon Wednesday said he would remain at the helm of the national airline despite his support for a failed 11.1 billion dollar (9.2 billion dollar) takeover of the company.

Dixon, who is the profitable airline's chief executive officer, added that he would accelerate existing management strategies, including expanding Qantas' budget off-shoot Jetstar.

He said although the bid by a private equity consortium headed by Macquarie Bank had failed, the bidders had endorsed Qantas' plans for the future.

"The bidders made it very plain that they were making the offer for Qantas to implement the strategic plan Qantas was undertaking," Dixon told The Australian. "We intend to continue with that plan."

Apart from expanding Jetstar, the strategies include buying into foreign carriers and developing freight business.

The embarrassing failure of the bid, which crashed after the Airline Partners Australia (APA) consortium did not reach a minimum 50 percent of shareholder acceptances for its proposal, had led to calls for a shake-up of Qantas management.

The Qantas board, which stood to gain millions of dollars in payouts and bonuses if the takeover went ahead, had unanimously endorsed the bid.

Qantas chairman Margaret Jackson has given no indication she will step down, saying earlier this week that continuity and stability were vital to the continuing successful operation of the airline.

Analysts said one of the reasons the bid failed was that the offer of 5.45 dollars per share was too low given upgraded earnings forecasts from Qantas and significant gains by the Australian sharemarket overall since the offer was made in December.

But Qantas has reportedly slammed the door on allowing APA to make another stab at a takeover at the same price, as the consortium has indicated.

"If they come back it would have to be better than 5.45 dollars, that's for sure," Qantas deputy chief executive told The Sydney Morning Herald.

Meanwhile, the airline is scrambling to ensure that recent heavy trading in Qantas shares has not left a majority of the airline's stock in foreign hands.

Under Australian law, Qantas' foreign ownership is capped at 49 percent.

Transport Minister Mark Vaile on Wednesday said there was no deadline on Qantas completing a reconciliation of its foreign ownership.

"We've said we expect that to take place as soon as possible," he said.

"Obviously, that can't be done to the detriment of all other shareholders if it has a deleterious effect on the share price, but it needs to be done as soon as possible."

Qantas shares held steady to close up one cent at 5.23 dollars.

Email Story
IM Story
Printable View

mrpaxing

10th May 2007, 02:20

all these words of wisdom from GD sticking with the current strategie and not letting anything get in the way of his (and the rest of senior managers)multi million wages and bonuses. why do the board then meet next week to set a new direction for the company????????????:ouch: :ouch:

GUARD

10th May 2007, 04:00

How can that woman possibly stay?????

She specifically said "...anyone who does not accept the offer has a mental problem."

How can she now represent the interests of those same mentally defective shareholders with ANY degree of impartiality?

GUARD:confused:

Chocks Away

10th May 2007, 04:20

The true characters of those heading up QF have finally been shown up.:yuk:

They should be hanging there heads in shame and disgrace and stand aside immediately as their greed at a massive bonus with the APA recommendation, was refused outright by those they serve!

How obvious does it have to be...:hmm:

YesTAM

10th May 2007, 06:54

I don't think Mr Dixon or the chairlady have the last say in this matter.

'holic

10th May 2007, 07:04

G'day YesTAM,
Who does have the final say? And when might this be decided?
Cheers

QF MAINT OUTSOURCED

10th May 2007, 08:00

perhaps the board should have sold their own shares to APA,that may have gotten the deal over the line,i'm sure they have a few between them,or was the offer not good enough:E

Taildragger67

10th May 2007, 08:13

Guard,

A good question to be put at the AGM.

I would love to see an individual shareholder get up, say something like "I am a shareholder. I didn't sell. Therefore, according to Ms Jackson's diagnosis, I am 'mental'. Guess what else? For up to 900 hours a year, you lot entrust me - a 'mental' - with a large asset with the company name on it, and 400 paying customers jammed within it. So you're entrusting members of the public to the care of 'mentals'. Can that be right? And what medical qualifications do you have to make a psychiatric diagnosis?"

If 100 Qantas shareholders can be bothered banding together, my reading of the Corporation Act is that they could get an EGM called at which they could put nasty questions to the board. The fact that this has not happened indicates why this nearly got through - the apathy of small shareholders. :hmm:

jtr

10th May 2007, 08:51

Taildragger, how much overtime can one expect for those sort of hours?

Taildragger67

10th May 2007, 08:58

jtr,

Fair 'nuff call - getting my months and years confused!

Post edited.

jtr

10th May 2007, 09:04

I am sure there is something subliminal in the way that we always get it wrong that way, not in the "90 hours a year" sense.....

YesTAM

10th May 2007, 19:28

Who has the final say? Why the Shareholders of course! If the major shareholders decide that the Board composition is not to their liking, then they will elect other people.

Usually it never comes to that......A quiet lunch is held where it is explained that someone else needs YOUR Board seat, so there's a good chap, move along, and we will offer you a seat somewhere else where we could really use a person of your talents......

(And no its never happened to me)

lowerlobe

10th May 2007, 21:10

YesTam...Or when the majority or leader (Darth) feels their existence threatened enough they will choose a patsy or someone who's sacrifice will satisfy the public and majority of shareholders.

In other words a suitable financial inducement with the offer of introduction to other boards and possible return to QF as a consultant at some time in the future.:yuk:

gupta

10th May 2007, 22:52

Bullwinkle

No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition

roamingwolf

11th May 2007, 01:03

Qantas heads for a ripper - without APA

Scott Rochfort
May 11, 2007

IT HAS now become obvious why the Airline Partners Australia consortium was keen to wrap up its $11.1 billion takeover bid for Qantas as quickly as possible.

Qantas yesterday released its best ever March traffic statistics, fuelling optimism the airline will easily beat the record pre-tax profit of $939 million it forecast just two months ago.

Adding to the stream of bumper traffic updates it has issued since the board endorsed the now aborted APA bid last December, Qantas is enjoying its best patch since it was privatised by the Keating government in 1995.

The airline reported it had filled 80.7 per cent of its seats compared to 75.1 per cent in the previous March.

Despite its doomsday warnings about the threat posed by Middle Eastern airlines such as Emirates, Qatar and Etihad, Qantas's international operations reported a sharp lift in passenger loads and yields (average fares). International passenger loads rose 8.3 per cent to 83.6 per cent, with yields surging 8.6 per cent on the previous 12 months.

"It's another month of strong numbers and the short-term outlook is is very good," said JP Morgan analyst Matt Crowe, who has a $5.68 price target on Qantas.

In a note Mr Crowe sent his clients earlier in the day, he estimated "every sustained 100 basis point increase in load factors across the group adds $150 million to pre-tax profit".

So far this fiscal year, Qantas's load factors are up 3.2 per cent on the previous year.

However, there is still some doubt whether Qantas will issue its fourth profit upgrade since December, for fear of embarrassing its board over endorsing the failed $5.45 a share APA bid.

But Qantas could keep an upgrade up its sleeve, given its board and management are now attempting to distance themselves from the Macquarie Bank-led consortium.[/SIZE][/SIZE]

WynSock

11th May 2007, 01:36

I thought Dixo was going to give his bonus to charity?

Did he stand to get a little more after the company went private?

How much are we talking here?

If it's a lot of moolah, I am disgusted to say the least...

YesTAM

11th May 2007, 06:55

Told yer so! The Board said it was a clapped out Holden and to take the offer.

Turns out that under all that ***l*** Dixon was spreading about the "legacy" airline with no future, QF was performing like a Rolls Royce cash generator - with a boot full of $100 bills as well!

I wonder how ASIC regards this? The ASX as well? Has the Board complied with its responsibilities? I would hope so for their sake.

.....And of course if the airline was taken private, why you would never have known about how wonderful the latest figures are, would you? All those hollow logs filled with cash could be drained at leisure, and no one would ever know would they?

The Board could keep spreading "legacy" airline doom and gloom while outsourcing all your jobs and laughing all the way to the bank, taking the Australian public for a bunch of mugs - and no one would have ever known would they????

Capt Kremin

11th May 2007, 07:23

WynSock. Dixon was going to get at least 60 million in "performance pay". This was for doing absolutely nothing more than he is already doing.
What people haven't really mentioned is that he also would have received a percentage of the company. What he would have realised when they sold Jetstar and relisted QF is for speculation because I don't know exactly how much he would have received.

One percent of the company now is 110 million, give or take. 34 QF senior management were splitting 4.5% of the company between them. Dixon would have had a significant share of that.

100 million? Maybe that is why he has come out swinging saying he will accelerate the process he has put in train. I don't know how he will do that without robbing mainline of airframes because you cannot hasten aircraft deliveries. (Unless he can lease from somewhere).

I think the man has the hide of an elephant. His greed is exposed for all to see. He has worse than zero credibility with the staff... they actively despise him.

F.O.G.

roamingwolf

11th May 2007, 09:13

Qantas campaign man ups his stake
May 11, 2007 02:15am
THE man blamed with starting the campaign that ultimately scuttled the $11.1 billion Qantas takeover, Andrew Sisson, has put his money where his mouth was.
In recent days, the institutional investor Balanced Equity Management has spent more than $32 million bolstering its stake in the airline.
For months, BEM chief executive Mr Sisson has said that Airline Partners Australia's $5.45-a-share bid undervalued the national carrier.
His stance threatened to block the takeover when it needed 90 per cent acceptances, and he is credited with starting opposition to the APA offer.
While APA said it is considering another bid, analysts expect the consortium will wait a few months to table a new offer, if at all.
Last weekend, the Qantas takeover collapsed after international hedge funds, who were using their shares in a giant game of global arbitrage, failed to sell enough shares to APA to keep the bid in the air.
Since the start of the month, BEM has spent $111 million on over 21 million shares to raise its holding in Qantas from just over four per cent to 5.33 per cent.
Support from BEM and local institutions has kept the Qantas share price strong.

Looks like someone thinks we are a good thing or he reckons another takeover is around the corner.Maybe he should be given the job of CEO and GD given the flick

No SAR No Details

11th May 2007, 13:22

I wonder how ASIC regards this? The ASX as well? Has the Board complied with its responsibilities? I would hope so for their sake.
And they forced Renee Rivkin to his grave over a couple of grands worth of Qantas shares.

lowerlobe

11th May 2007, 23:01

Qantas head hopes to stay on board in wake of bid crash

Mathew Murphy
May 12, 2007

QANTAS chairman Margaret Jackson says the Qantas board has done a good job for shareholders despite the collapse of the takeover bid she and her chief executive championed.

Ms Jackson, who said she wanted to stay on as chairman, pointed to the 23 per cent rise in Qantas shares since the bid was launched in December.

"It wasn't that long ago that the share price was at $3," she told BusinessDay. "I think my concern along the way was, if the bid failed and the share price went down to where it had been, it would be disappointing.

"I think the thing that has been very reassuring is that through this process it would appear that institutions have reweighted their views on Qantas and if the Qantas stock has been reweighted as a consequence of this, then we have done a good job for shareholders."

In answer to speculation surrounding her position on the board following the bid's collapse, Ms Jackson said: "For the moment both myself and the board believe that continuity and stability is what's needed."

Ms Jackson declined to say if she agreed with people such as Balanced Equity's Andrew Sisson, who felt the bid was undervalued at $5.45-a-share. While APA is yet to reveal whether it will come back for a second go at Qantas, it is believed that Ms Jackson is of the view that it will not.

Yesterday, Ms Jackson said the board would not accept $5.45 if the Macquarie Bank-led consortium came back with another offer but that it was up to the market to decide if Qantas' value was up around $6 a share.

Her comments came after the Qantas takeover was finally declared dead a third time, following a missed deadline last Friday night, appeals to the Takeovers Panel and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and the threat of Federal Court action. APA finally raised the white flag on Tuesday saying it would withdraw the offer.

Ms Jackson said the events had left her frustrated and as confused as everyone else.

"We had a significant number of shareholders who did sell through the bid process to hedge funds and it is difficult to understand what happened last Friday night," she said.

Ms Jackson would not comment on APA's handling of the offer, saying it was a matter for it how it "chose to do it." She also declined to say whether she felt corporate greed by a number of hedge funds played a part in the demise of the bid.

.......And you would have to have a mental condition not to accept the offer...FOGAM

speeeedy

12th May 2007, 00:46

"I think the thing that has been very reassuring is that through this process it would appear that institutions have reweighted their views on Qantas and if the Qantas stock has been reweighted as a consequence of this, then we have done a good job for shareholders."

This tragic fool is now saying that the takeover offer is why the price is now 'reweighted' after crowing on for 5 months saying the price would drop to $4 if the deal fell over.

How does the dame explain the 100% rise in Air NZ shares, 60% In VB shares and Rex as well as similar increases in the share price of SIA, BA, AF-KLM and the list goes on and on and on.

But, yeah, thank god this 'diamond encrusted, rolled gold F%$K Up' happened! - She is the one with a MENTAL problem, and proving it every day.

A little tip for you dame - if your CEO hadn't crapped on at every opportunity teling the market how the airline is teatering on the brink of collapse and the profits are only because he is a legend, then maybe the price would have been mid $5 back in November and the good news of the last 2 months would have seen it go well over $6 by now.

I think I see some fog rolling in this morning.....

FOG AM

cobber_digger_buddy

12th May 2007, 00:49

And they forced Renee Rivkin to his grave over a couple of grands worth of Qantas shares.

Whilst Rene was no saint in the true sense of the word, crucially he was not a member of the boys club that exists between Pitt Street, Airport Central and Kirribilli.

Jackson is a favoured son, just read todays smh on the number of Board positions she's been offered by both VIC and NSW states and federal government since 1993.

Incompetent at best, ineffectually mediocre and dishonest at worst.

YesTAM

12th May 2007, 01:00

errrr, Rene Rivkin was a member of a "boys club":yuk: Just not that one.

cobber_digger_buddy

12th May 2007, 01:06

ok ok, not that one, the other one ........:uhoh:

domo

12th May 2007, 10:20

I love Qantas," she continues. "I haven't worked as hard as I have done these many years to see Qantas damaged."

i worked the last 10 years on 12 hours nightshifts to see qantas not damaged yet you f***** off syd heavy the best maintenance people
you love qantas fall on your sword

No SAR No Details

12th May 2007, 11:14

Well said:D :D :D :D

Taildragger67

12th May 2007, 15:22

Speeeeedy,

:ok:

Any reasonably competent manager should have Qantas's share price up in the last couple of years. It's called 'cyclicality' - airlines are cyclical business and right now we're in a global upswing. US carriers are emerging from Ch. 11, there have been few Ansetts/Sabenas/Swissairs (VARIG has really been the only biggie to go under) - hell, even Alitalia is managing to stay afloat.

So, MAJ, let's put it this way - you haven't done anything more than you've been getting (very well) paid for. It would've taken wilfull recklessness to stuff it up. You're no genius, now git and don't darken Coward St's doorstep again. You've become an embarrassment to Australian corporate governance.

I love that line from some yank teen film - "Fcuk you, and the horse you rode in on!"

QF MAINT OUTSOURCED

12th May 2007, 21:10

well said Domo,there were people in Heavy that had given Qantas 20,30,35 yrs only to be shown the door,because they were too good at their job,left no stone unturned when it came to aircraft saftey,the Qantas board found this to expensive to have the job done correct so they shut it down(relying on aircraft redundence sys to pick up the short falls in Maintenance),how dare that f*cken bitch make a call like that ,15yrs,stiff sh!t,she was paid way overboard for the roll and then she comes up with insults like that:confused:

YesTAM

13th May 2007, 00:00

Takeover targets are usually badly managed at Board/CEO level - thats why they are takeover targets. In other words, the company's return on capital employed is below industry norms and the share price suffers accordingly - making the company "cheaper" to buy.

The buyer is banking on the knowledge that either he has synergies by combining his own with the takeover target to create higher value, or he can manage the purchased company better than the existing management.

Provided the offer price is high enough, and the Board has extracted the maximum from the bidder, then the Board should recommend the bid to shareholders. Thats what Andrew did with Western Mining when Rio Tinto wanted it . Incidently this is why CEO's/ MD's should have share options - they may have to recommend that the compay be sold and their job disappears.

What was strange (to me) about the Qantas bid was that nothing was really going to change except ownership. The Board was staying, so was the management. The Board told the shareholders to accept the bid. The shareholders had nowhere else to go for an independent valuation. In effect they were being asked to sell the shares in the dark.

So the question remains. Why did the Board recommend the bid? What could Macquarie do that the existing management couldn't do? Or perhaps more importantly, what could the management and Macquarie do in private, that the management couldn't do in public?

I believe answers are required to these questions, and I hope ASIC and perhaps the ACCC and ASX follows them up.

Vorsicht

13th May 2007, 05:07

yestam

What the company can't do now is take on the enormous amount of debt that APA was going to do. Firstly Qantas doesn't need to take on that amount of debt, and if they did, their share price would plummet due to the enormous risk associated with that amount of leverage. Additionally, if Qantas did borrow that sort of money, what would they do with it? Give it back to shareholders, i dont think so.

As a privately owned company they would not have to worry about shareprice and the risk/reward ratio was far better. i.e they (APA) were going to make $1bn in the first year, after getting all their investment back. So they believed the risk of burdening the company with that amount of debt was supported by the $1bn they were going to make. And in their case the risk was only for the first year. So assuming no disaster in the airline industry for the first year, it was easy money.

On the other hand, if Qantas took on that sort of debt as a public company, it would be long term debt and expose the company, over many years, to being susceptible to any downturn in the market.

Crossbleed

13th May 2007, 05:09

From "The Couch trip" -
She's:
" someone who's skirted around societies fringes and never really done
5hit".
:D :D ;) ;) ;)

hoss

13th May 2007, 21:56

you'd think she was smart enough to take a hint and go somewhere else to feel mental and raped.

QFinsider

13th May 2007, 21:59

You can't expect any honour amongst thieves these days...

:suspect:

priapism

13th May 2007, 22:38

The most interesting thing will be how Dick and Jack try to justify their actions and positions when it is announced that their selfish folly has left Q.F in breach of Australian foreign ownership rules.

What a total cock up!

lowerlobe

13th May 2007, 23:07

Interesting article in Saturdays SMH regarding MJ or MAJ as her friends apparently like to call her.

It's too large to post here but is very insightful even mentioning the ski fields in Japan .

It's easy to find with a search on yahoo7 web site.

YesTAM

14th May 2007, 04:50

There is an interesting little letter in "The Australian" today referring to Ms. Jackson's sudden discovery of the need for "Continuity", "Corporate Memory" and the retention of skills and experience in reference to her position on the Qantas Board.

Such hypocrisy is breathtaking after the closure of Sydney Heavy Maintenance and the loss of.....continuity, memory, skills and experience.:yuk:

I would suggest Ms. Jackson's skills are in far greater supply than Heavy maintenance engineers, and I know in which skill sets mistakes involve risk to human life and which do not.

No SAR No Details

14th May 2007, 07:08

MAJ's next contract should be written with a "Gray Nichols" Pen.:E

Taildragger67

14th May 2007, 08:00

Lowerlobe,

Here (http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/mental-as-anything--maj-tells-of-the-passion/2007/05/11/1178390553229.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1) is that SMH article.

RedTBar

14th May 2007, 23:11

Taildragger67:

Thanks for the link.It is a very interesting article and reinforces what most of us are thinking.

The article is too big to be re printed here but here is a section that I found very interesting.

"During the early days of her career as a director, Jackson expertly steered her way through several difficult situations, with little if any public fallout or cost to her reputation. That's because she was always vocal in forcing others to take responsibility, to own up to their mistakes.

She was chair of BHP's audit committee during the debacles of the late 1990s. Billions were lost in cost blow-outs at the hot-briquetted iron project in Western Australia and the ludicrous Magma Copper acquisition in the US. These disasters rocked BHP's reputation and claimed the scalps of then BHP chairman Jerry Ellis and chief executive John Prescott.

And she was in the same position of audit committee chairman when Pacific Dunlop wrote off billions. Chief executive Philip Brass was ousted in 1996 and Jackson was in favour of his departure.

As head of the audit committee, it wasn't Jackson pushing the button on the projects. It was her job to ensure the accounts were accurate. And it was Jackson who pushed in both cases, who argued for the write-offs, to ensure the company took its medicine"

Now this in relation to the failed takeover bid:

"Jackson appears almost deaf to the criticism. She did not offer her resignation to the Qantas board.

"My view and the board's view is that what we need now is to settle the management down," she says. "We haven't done anything wrong, I don't believe."

As I said very enlightening

roamingwolf

15th May 2007, 02:20

Reading that bit reminds me of the time when your father would say 'this is going to hurt me a lot more than it will hurt you' just before he gave me a belt across the backside.

I had the same thought as i do now after reading that bit and it is 'Yeah right'

Don Esson

15th May 2007, 02:20

We haven't done anything wrong

That may be debatable but the begging question remains: "What did they do that was right?"

The next Qantas AGM will be a little ripper. If you follow the pattern of the last cycle, it will be in Melbourne but will the Board select as remote (for travel purposes) a location as possible to avoid those pesky shareholders and their awkward questions. Maybe they will plonk for either of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island or Cocos Island . Does anyone know when and where it will be?

roamingwolf

15th May 2007, 03:44

well gd has finally got the share price up but just not the way he wanted.

YesTAM

15th May 2007, 04:53

Read Terry MCRann today.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21731497-664,00.html

MARGARET Jackson has to go as chairman of Qantas. The second reason might be more personally persuasive.
Neither of them relate to the chaotic weekend at the close of the APA offer. That had nothing to do with Qantas or its board of directors, which therefore bear no responsibility for it.
Responsibility for what, anyway?................

The Qantas board erred in two significant and in my judgment quite unacceptable ways. For which Jackson as chairman has to take responsibility. And pay the ultimate price.

The first was persisting with the recommendation to accept the offer when both broader investment circumstances and internal operational performance had changed so sharply.

At no stage did the board deviate from its recommendation to accept. This meant that well before it closed, the board was recommending shareholders sell Qantas at a price that was relatively less than that at which Air New Zealand was trading in the market.

How could the board possibly justify their implicit claim that Qantas was worth less than Air NZ? Further, how can a chairman continue in that role who showed so little faith in the intrinsic value of the company?

Second, the board hardly distinguished itself in keeping shareholders as fully-informed as possible when they were being asked to make the most fundamental decision they can ever make as shareholders.

First the interim profit briefing for analysts was cancelled. The statement, on February 8, contained broad profit guidance of a 30 to 40 per cent increase for the full year.

Five full weeks passed in which the offer could have been done and dusted before Qantas gave any further guidance. And then seemingly unwillingly and even churlishly.

Its statement opened by noting media commentary on its outlook and "questions from certain investors". "In response to these matters Qantas provides the following information."

In short, in its own damning words, there would have been no voluntary disclosure but for those questions.

Qantas now said that the result would likely to be "toward the upper end" of the 30 to 40 per cent.

From that statement on March 15 until the offer closed on May 4 nothing further substantive was said about trading. Certainly, no further profit upgrade.

Well, as the takeover failed, we are now going to find out. If the (real) profit increase comes in the slightest bit above 40 per cent, and Jackson is still chairman, she would be fully carbonised toast.

So sez Mr. Mcrann.

I cannot understand why the Board would not tell its shareholders that the APA bid was now a dud? It looked like a rotting fish. It smelt like a rotting fish, yet the QF Board remained shtum. What gives? What am I not understanding? How could such a position be in the best interests of the company or existing shareholders????

AN LAME

15th May 2007, 06:48

Wouldn't be anything to do with the incentive payments...:hmm:

'holic

15th May 2007, 07:23

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21725963-462,00.html

"In discussions that I've had with senior management from the company, they've given me a clear undertaking that they intend to maintain the share register in such a way that it remains compliant with the Qantas sales act," Mr Vaile said.

"As the smoke clears after the bid and the activity that has taken place on the share market, it will take a short time to ascertain the structure of the register.I know the answer to this question and I'm pretty sure you all do as well. How long will it take for the board to reconcile foreign ownership?

If I was a betting man, I would have said that IF the 50% acceptance had been reached by the deadline, I'm sure we would have all heard about it very shortly afterwards. So presumably APA (and Qantas) had sufficient records to determine this. Yet we have been waiting at least a week and half for an answer to the foreign ownership question. Let me guess, are they waiting for the cap to fall below 49% before they make any kind of announcement.

In this day and age of computers, does the share registry have no records of the nationality of share owners? How did they police the Qantas Sales Act before the APA offer was even dreamt of? Are they trying to tell us it was one man with a notepad and abacus?

The real question is, what can we do to put pressure on these bastards and make them accountable?

stubby jumbo

15th May 2007, 07:36

AN LAME......I think the incentive payments were only part of the story for the Board.

The other BIG FISH was to smash the Unions.......under the guise of being a private company.
In other words as a public company you have an umbilical cord attached to Joe Public and the Govt.
But as a Private Company its :

RIP, RORT AND ROUT............. and there's "jack" any one can do about it.!!!

Dixon must be shattered.:{

The other news that has really got in my craw today is to hear that the CEO of Mac Bank earnt about $34m dollars this year ....mostly in bonuses.
This is obsene.......partcularly in light of the fact that he was the "Captain" (sic !) of the ship that botched one of the biggest deals in Australian corporate history.....:yuk:

lowerlobe

15th May 2007, 12:02

The amount of foreign ownership in Qantas is a current topic and I'm interested in how they lower that level if it has exceeded the limit.

Let's say company"A" in Europe has bought 5% this week.Is it the company(QF) that accepts that purchase or the brokerage?

If it is the company and the government forces QF to lower the amount of foreign ownership and company "A" was the last foreign based concern to do so.Is company "A" expected to sell their shares on a last on first off basis?

If the share price has dropped since the initial purchase is there any compensation to company "A" for both the share price drop and brokerage fees?

If so where does the compensation come from?

Taildragger67

15th May 2007, 14:02

Lowerlobe,

Section 10 of the Act (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/previewlodgmentattachments/581876450E3C2FBCCA2572BB001F9CCA/$file/QantasSale1992_WD02.htm#param12) basically says that an injunction can be granted forcing any act by Qantas or anyone else which has or will contravene s.7 (the mandatory provisions in the company's Articles), to be reversed.

Take a look at s.9 as well and s.7(1)(d), looks like the directors can compel a sale.

As for compensation - I'd say none - caveat emptor - up to a prospective foreign buyer to check.