Ms Jackson refusses to go
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: mascot
Age: 57
Posts: 473
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'
I had the same thought as i do now after reading that bit and it is 'Yeah right'
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Que?
We haven't done anything wrong
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?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Endor
Age: 83
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read Terry MCRann today.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...97-664,00.html
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????
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...97-664,00.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.
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.
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????
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas forced to comply with cap
http://www.news.com.au/business/stor...63-462,00.html
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?
"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.
"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.
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?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 503
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lowerlobe,
Section 10 of the Act 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.
Section 10 of the Act 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.
Last edited by Taildragger67; 15th May 2007 at 14:14.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: lapbandland
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will place a bet that very litlle will be heard about the
finer points of this attempted takeover until AFTER the
federal election. I prefer Howard, but would suggest that
Rudd should demand publication of the exact level of
foreign ownership when the bid closed. If anyone succeeds
in gleaning this information before the election it will
finish off the Liberal's chances. In any case, Margaret and
Darth should clean out their desks for the possiblility of
the amount of foreign ownership being leaked. Find a board
to stand on Darth you will need it.
finer points of this attempted takeover until AFTER the
federal election. I prefer Howard, but would suggest that
Rudd should demand publication of the exact level of
foreign ownership when the bid closed. If anyone succeeds
in gleaning this information before the election it will
finish off the Liberal's chances. In any case, Margaret and
Darth should clean out their desks for the possiblility of
the amount of foreign ownership being leaked. Find a board
to stand on Darth you will need it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: W'town vic Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bye bye
I wonder what top job she walks into after the amazing performance for Qantas 
a top one I bet. (Bugger)
Now, next from the board while the axe is still sharp
a top one I bet. (Bugger)Now, next from the board while the axe is still sharp