Virgin Media's Berkett paid Â£3.6m in 2009

Media Boy UK · 03-05-2010, 12:51

Virgin Media chief executive Neil Berkett took home a total remuneration package of $5.7 million (Â£3.6m) last year, despite the company imposing a pay freeze to cut costs.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...m-in-2009.html

Risco · 03-05-2010, 13:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Media Boy

Virgin Media chief executive Neil Berkett took home a total remuneration package of $5.7 million (Â£3.6m) last year, despite the company imposing a pay freeze to cut costs.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitalt...m-in-2009.html

I see no issue, he has helped turn the corner for the company this year. They have refinanced themselves, and made a profit. Now of course it is a rather large sum of money. I would have a big issue if he was taking a big bonus if they had not been successful.

Sirius · 03-05-2010, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Risco

I see no issue, he has helped turn the corner for the company this year. They have refinanced themselves, and made a profit. Now of course it is a rather large sum of money. I would have a big issue if he was taking a big bonus if they had not been successful.

Agreed

He gets my support. However i await the hecklers to descend on the thread with interest

**Hugh** · 03-05-2010, 14:03

The important part in the OP link was, imho

Quote:

stock and incentive plan awards of Â£3m

So if he hadn't delivered, he would not have been rewarded - sounds fair to me.

Digital Fanatic · 03-05-2010, 14:06

Neil is doing a good job... He does deserve his pay. VM is in good shape and getting better all the time

TheDon · 03-05-2010, 14:54

If you want people like Berkett working for you, you have to pay them this level of wages.
The guy has saved the company countless times more than what he's being paid.

zantarous · 03-05-2010, 16:40

Agreed he has done some amazing things with the company in the last few years and continues to show signs that he has no intention of stopping. He does not have the limitless resources of Sky but has managed to reduce and refinance debt and make a nice bit of operating cash. In that link it also says that he took a pay cut and as posted above is that the lion share of that came from reaching targets that had been set.

Toto · 03-05-2010, 16:46

Have to agree with the general sentiment so far, looking at their share price alone since he took over, he appears to have done some great things for Virgin Media.

I think back to the Sky One fiasco, the man held his nerve and got a fair price for that channel. Going up against Sky shows a lot of character, so I say well done that man.

Ignitionnet · 03-05-2010, 20:55

Market rate. If he were not getting that kind of money from Virgin Media he'd be getting it elsewhere. Really good management is expensive.

Peter_ · 03-05-2010, 21:05

It is good to see that we are all in agreement and that good management has to be well paid.

**Hugh** · 03-05-2010, 21:21

I am happy to see that as well.....

Ben B · 03-05-2010, 21:42

Yes in this meritocratic society we live in...

Horizon · 03-05-2010, 22:45

Just like the bankers, there is something completely obscene about this.

Why should someone be "rewarded" for doing a job? Fine, they get a decent salary, but that should be it, no share options/bonuses.

Then of course we have the small matter that VM is still in several billion pounds of debt.

Another poster has said here that VM are in good shape, really? I don't see a company which has never made a profit, has huge debts and non existent growth depending on how many customers VM say they have on any one particular day. One minute its one number, and another minute its a totally different figure. 50k customers all of a sudden aren't real paying customers, or, there's another data cleanse and another 50k customers disappear or reappear, or whatever it is. Total shambles and certainly no one should be paid 3.6 million for that.

Digital Fanatic · 04-05-2010, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horizon

Just like the bankers, there is something completely obscene about this.

Why should someone be "rewarded" for doing a job? Fine, they get a decent salary, but that should be it, no share options/bonuses.

Then of course we have the small matter that VM is still in several billion pounds of debt.

Another poster has said here that VM are in good shape, really? I don't see a company which has never made a profit, has huge debts and non existent growth depending on how many customers VM say they have on any one particular day. One minute its one number, and another minute its a totally different figure. 50k customers all of a sudden aren't real paying customers, or, there's another data cleanse and another 50k customers disappear or reappear, or whatever it is. Total shambles and certainly no one should be paid 3.6 million for that.

His salary is something like Â£500k... he got a PERFORMANCE related bonus based on how well he did his job.

Sky's CEO gets Â£800k before bonuses... Neil is working hard for his.

VM is in good shape, sure they have their problems and they are far from perfect... lots of companies don't make a profit and are in debt, VM are investing in their network to GROW the business beyond their current footprint.

pip08456 · 06-05-2010, 22:36

I cannot see any problem with anyone getting a performance related bonus. If you don't deliver what you are contracted to do then you don't get it.

Many years ago when I worked in manufacturing I was a Machine operator on a basic pay of Â£39.00 per week plus performance related bonuses, my take - home pay per week was Â£98.00, a lot of money then.

Equate that from the late 70's to now. I would be on quite a few thou a week!