John Clark & Bryan Dawe ABC, Gold!!
 

I have a feeling that Joyce and his actions will attract comedy for a long time yet!
ABC just a few mins ago, John Clarke & Bryan Dawe!!
LMAO.
I have no idea how to provide a link, anyone help.
Cheers.

Clarke and Dawe
 

I have just got in my inbox a special fare on Emirates to Dublin; maybe a certain small man should be put on the flight. I am sure if the hat were to be passed around there would be enough for a one way ticket.:E

I'm sure he could afford it out of his recent bonus payout and also a lock for the door as it slams his ar$e on his way out.


I would gladly pay for his ticket in exchange for his Aussie passport and a termination of any chancrs of ever coming back. The only problem with AJ going back to Oireland is that St Patrick has already expelled all the snakes from there.

clotted
 

My god, haven't we had enough bulls#&t on this issue already? clotted, you know this is an out and out lie. The VAST majority of QF shareholders do not support AJ and the Board, and you and the other trolls onsite bloody well know it. Of the 133,000+ shareholders my guess would be no more than 2,000 odd are in agreement (QF, for obviously damaging reasons to them will not produce the actual figures). The problem is the vast majority of shareholders are you and me, Mum and Dad. 95% of the votes are held by what, 20 single, solitary people. It's a joke. In other words mate, the other 2% of votes = well over 130,000 Shareholders.

clotted you are....

Ha ha ha ha! You are a clot, aren't you? Perhaps the 98% know something all others don't know eh...?

It seems to me that it's a weird world when we have posters on a thread such as this attacking the CEO of a company that has the support of 98% of its shareholders and made $500 million profit last financial year and yet yesterday a competitor's CEO had his remuneration package voted against by 45% of its shareholders and made a loss for the year and yet another airline in Australia declined to forecast a profit for next year and the only other Australian trunk airline is still losing money after being grounded for being badly run.
I'm not sure who has it right and who has it wrong. I suspect it is probably not the posters on this thread.

Clotted,

In the interests of accuracy, the company concerned did not have the support of 98% of shareholders. Your assertion is incorrect.


N

Hahaha having a boring evening clotted?

98% of shares owned by 2% of shareholders voted in support of that motion.

No dividend for 2 years, gee whiz, they really are kicking all the goals.

Perhaps you need to think past the spin, either that or find a news source other than News Ltd.

If you do actually work for the airline concerned you must be blind as well as deaf, it would be hard to find a more disengaged workforce in a company of that size.

A lot of previously willing horses have been flogged well past their limit.

Sure not every view expressed here is correct and in some cases they are highly suspect re logic,but lets hope the senators give the Rat a lesson in business ethics in a way that demonstrates to some of the decision makers that the means does not justify the end.

DJ is a completely different animal to the Rat but what some are grabbing onto is the fact that it is not the role of either a Board or CEO to totally alienate almost the entire workforce and loyal customers and destroy years of technical competence developed through vast experience banks without damn good reasons.Undeveloped plans and deceptions do not fall into that category.

If the Rat is in the place as alleged at this time, it got there by a process that was essentially dictated by or agreed by prior management and employees, so a competent management team would work out a way to evolve with its workers rather than just lay the entire blame on the workers.

If we are at this precipice then it is because those responsible failed to act to evolve in an economically rational way before revolution was necessary. ie the Executive and Board failed to fulfill their own responsibilities.

As I have said on many occasions, never have I seen a management team that has been perceived to have mislead so many and get away with it and with such breathtaking levels of arrogance.The public dont like that and that is why there is so much contempt being shown for the Company at this time.

Perhaps all of the above explains why JB was treated so differently and at the risk of alienating some, perhaps justifiably so.

The Qantas brand is an asset of the Australian economy and not for the benefit of a select few to play with as they see fit.

There is more to this than shareholder profits.What came from the QSA discussion in the senate was that the current actions are not consistent with the intent of the legislation and the Rat is playing the game by its own interpretation of the rules which is probably correct but not consistent with what was intended at the time that Qantas was deemed the national carrier.

Time to fix that up.

Exactly what I mean, you two:
the apples and apples comparison is that the owners of 98% of the shares in the first company voted in favour whereas the owners of 45% of the shares voted against in the second company.
Obviously the 98% accept for whatever reason the non-payment of a dividend.

Some people have more of other people's dollars than sense.

The largest shareholders are trust fund institutional investors holding and investing superannuation funds (including mine! :sad:)

Posted at 11.41 Aust Eastern Standard Time - not 26th Nov 2011, 03:27

This should be Post 176 :ugh:

98%?? Some people have more dollars than cents.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...np2DBsOl1wd-ug

There are three (3) types of people in the world - those who understand numerology and those who dont.

The other 50 % dont care either way, and the remaining two thirds cant add up.

So help me God, I'll ground the whole internet - LMFAO. :D

It is an interesting question re voting rights of shareholders.

The vast majority of shares in Australian companies are held by institutional investors who invest in shares for mum and dad investors for superannuation, managed funds etc.

The voting rights, however, are vested in the directors and trustees of the funds rather than the final owners of the shares. Perhaps it is overdue that the real owners of the shares are given the option to direct their proxies as they see fit rather than the default position of the fund managers.

It would be chaos but geeze it would be fun to watch! Once the smartest guys in the room realise that real 'little' people are empowered to have their say it might change things a little.

That's called self-managered superannuation, and Mum and Dad are welcome to make that choice anytime they like!