Dixon admits greed can be bad
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dixon admits greed can be bad
Interesting how failure and greed can look ok in hindsight.
Qantas lucky $11bn takeover bid crashed, Geoff Dixon says | NEWS.com.au
Qantas lucky $11bn takeover bid crashed, Geoff Dixon says | NEWS.com.au
I'm speechless really.
That says it all.
"The real Achilles heel was that it got very, very emo-tional - principally because I and the senior management team were going to earn tens of millions of dollars as part of it."
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Dixon said Qantas management deserved credit for having recovered quickly from the disappointment,
"I think lesser companies and a lesser management team could have imploded. There could have been real problems," he said.
"I think lesser companies and a lesser management team could have imploded. There could have been real problems," he said.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'll be blowed, atlast a light is on, but I suspect only to rewrite the context of any lingering legacy.
These Einsteins were paid to look after the shareholder interest's and history speaks for itself on what actually happened and what they tried to do.
Sure,the place would have been trashed if the bid had been successful, and rather than give any credit for what exists now, I would suggest it was DESPITE the management rather than anything they actually achieved, whilst undoubtedly looking for post retirement gigs.
Remember the cost to the company of all these events in $$$ and distraction, my god they could have even been growing or building the company, rather than basking in the glory of lawyers, bankers and related corporate leeches.
The other real question is whether anthropy is better with or without such kind offers, as it appears some still dont get $$$ are not everything and these gigs cannot be bought.
These Einsteins were paid to look after the shareholder interest's and history speaks for itself on what actually happened and what they tried to do.
Sure,the place would have been trashed if the bid had been successful, and rather than give any credit for what exists now, I would suggest it was DESPITE the management rather than anything they actually achieved, whilst undoubtedly looking for post retirement gigs.
Remember the cost to the company of all these events in $$$ and distraction, my god they could have even been growing or building the company, rather than basking in the glory of lawyers, bankers and related corporate leeches.
The other real question is whether anthropy is better with or without such kind offers, as it appears some still dont get $$$ are not everything and these gigs cannot be bought.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think people saw us as being compromised, despite the fact it was a good offer.
"It didn't happen, and I'm very pleased now that it didn't happen."
"It didn't happen, and I'm very pleased now that it didn't happen."
The part I liked is that he justifies the payout to himself and the other management by saying that is how equity takeovers work.If the role of the board is to look after the interests of the shareholders and the offer so good then why did they not endorse the takeover bid without the need of a financial offer to themselves?
Is it true that in a recent takeover of an Australian bank that the outgoing CEO is getting paid $11 million.
Sound familiar?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole transaction was a sham from start to finish. "Project Suzie" was planned from the early days of privatisiation with Kerry and the board as it was, including I may add, many of the protagonists in the recent failed bid. Macquarie was as thick in it then as they were with this one...
Corporate Governance is the key to ensuring the rules are adhered to.
The scary part is the beneficiaries of the rules are usually the rule makers.
Just where is the scrutiny of this "transaction" and many others?
As we have seen with Enron before and now the financial mess in the western world, allowing the foxes to run the chicken coop very rarely results in a good outcome....for the chickens.
Corporate Governance is the key to ensuring the rules are adhered to.
The scary part is the beneficiaries of the rules are usually the rule makers.
Just where is the scrutiny of this "transaction" and many others?
As we have seen with Enron before and now the financial mess in the western world, allowing the foxes to run the chicken coop very rarely results in a good outcome....for the chickens.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a good read google up "Project Suzie"..Its amazing the extent of the daisy chain..the same criminals appear over and over...and no authority lays a glove on them...growl!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedTBAR,
Yep atrophy nails it provided that this doesnt include any natural occurring event, perhaps cannibalism should be an essential element of what was attempted here.
None of those involved should be alllowed to continue this pretence that has now been started by this newspaper article.
We must maintain the rage, tell them we will not forget, and when there is any attemt to seek forgiveness, say YES WE CAN, BUT NO WE WONT.
Tell them we also dont want their philantropy!!!Piss of back from where they came and let us all get on with trying to resurrect a once great company that should stand for better than it has in recent years.
Let the record stand as it should.
Yep atrophy nails it provided that this doesnt include any natural occurring event, perhaps cannibalism should be an essential element of what was attempted here.
None of those involved should be alllowed to continue this pretence that has now been started by this newspaper article.
We must maintain the rage, tell them we will not forget, and when there is any attemt to seek forgiveness, say YES WE CAN, BUT NO WE WONT.
Tell them we also dont want their philantropy!!!Piss of back from where they came and let us all get on with trying to resurrect a once great company that should stand for better than it has in recent years.
Let the record stand as it should.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to read the article a few times over. My original reaction was amusement, that slowly turned to anger, followed by a need to reach for a sick bag. Is he that insensitive to how people felt, how the whole Australian community felt, that he could come so close to destroying a Australian Icon for his and Jackson's bank account and then CONGRATULATE them for being such jolly good sports for not dummy spitting? Spare me. Not one word for leaving thirty six thousand people feeling helpless and frustrated, the destruction of one of the best heavy engineering sections in the aviation world, a company that was once the pride of the nation, now struggling to find its feet again after such a battering with the massive job of winning back PAX and convincing its O so loyal staff, that there are better times ahead, Alan Joyce I would hate to be you. And now some dimwit wants the bloke to apply for Premier of NSW (please let this be a joke) a state that is already in a fatal spiral dive, but if he does'nt do that he is going to help the indigenous people of this country (as if they don't have enough problems) Geoff, please just go away. 
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rodchucker,
Yeah I agree that cannibalism pretty much sums up the idea they had.You're right as well about forgetting or forgiving mainly because he doesn't regret anything.
After reading the article all I could think of was the trials in Nuremberg.
No regret or repentance other than telling us he was happy it didn't happen but still it was a great idea.
In other words he would still do the same thing again.
Yeah I agree that cannibalism pretty much sums up the idea they had.You're right as well about forgetting or forgiving mainly because he doesn't regret anything.
After reading the article all I could think of was the trials in Nuremberg.
No regret or repentance other than telling us he was happy it didn't happen but still it was a great idea.
In other words he would still do the same thing again.
Dixon would make a great Premier of NSW, he could sell the Bridge and lease it back to NSW public, he could do a lot of nice deals with government utilities for Macquarie Bank on behalf of himself, privitize Bondi Beach for him and his mates personal use and lots of other sleazy deals.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the deal had happened however, I don't think management would have gotten their multi-million dollar payment -- and probably would have earnt a lot less than they are now
After all, in private equity, management only share in the case of a successful exit (and return to the investors)
What would have happened here
- Query if all the debt would have been placed before the meltdown happened potentially making for some interesting discussions with the banks
- Market downturn has significantly impacted the value of parts of the business that were going to be sold to repay debt (eg frequent flyer, terminal, planes). Thus business would be carrying a whole lot more debt than predicted
- Fuel price at over $140 would nat have been considered in the business case, nor the current economic downturn
So at about this point the business would be in real trouble - too much debt and falling earnings. Management would probably be close to getting replaced.
And very unlikely that the business could be refloated any time in the near future to deliver a return sufficient that management would get their bonuses.
After all, in private equity, management only share in the case of a successful exit (and return to the investors)
What would have happened here
- Query if all the debt would have been placed before the meltdown happened potentially making for some interesting discussions with the banks
- Market downturn has significantly impacted the value of parts of the business that were going to be sold to repay debt (eg frequent flyer, terminal, planes). Thus business would be carrying a whole lot more debt than predicted
- Fuel price at over $140 would nat have been considered in the business case, nor the current economic downturn
So at about this point the business would be in real trouble - too much debt and falling earnings. Management would probably be close to getting replaced.
And very unlikely that the business could be refloated any time in the near future to deliver a return sufficient that management would get their bonuses.
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moa999,
The difference between what you are saying and most of us is a single word 'intent'.
What would have happened is open to conjecture and debate and no one really knows what exactly would have happened given the unknown state of Allco and the current sub prime mess.
If you read his interview he still thinks it was a good offer and only suggests that it was the tens of millions in pay out to himself and the other managers that was the fly in the ointment.
The intent is still there and no regret other than with hindsight about the mechanics of the pay outs.
The other part is that he never tells the interviewer why exactly he is relieved that the deal did not go ahead.He only tells us that the issue of management involvement was a bad idea and that the equity group would have to negotiate what directors and managers they want after the sale.
This still does not address the issue of huge multi million dollar deals to upper company staff to endorse a deal even by tacit approval.
The difference between what you are saying and most of us is a single word 'intent'.
What would have happened is open to conjecture and debate and no one really knows what exactly would have happened given the unknown state of Allco and the current sub prime mess.
If you read his interview he still thinks it was a good offer and only suggests that it was the tens of millions in pay out to himself and the other managers that was the fly in the ointment.
The intent is still there and no regret other than with hindsight about the mechanics of the pay outs.
The other part is that he never tells the interviewer why exactly he is relieved that the deal did not go ahead.He only tells us that the issue of management involvement was a bad idea and that the equity group would have to negotiate what directors and managers they want after the sale.
This still does not address the issue of huge multi million dollar deals to upper company staff to endorse a deal even by tacit approval.
