new article from business spectator, page-6

I was just reading the business spectator article again. There is something that really galls me about what Larkin has to say. Tony Boyd asks about whether or not it is justified that management should receive retention bonuses etc. Larkin's response is that the payments of the bonuses were nutted out with the banks and are contingent on certain milestones concerning the asset sales. He says it like that makes it all better. He fails to acknowledge that the "milestones" will have been formulated to ensure that individual assets are sold at prices that ensure the banks get their money. Their is likely to be little incentive for these managers to try and get a slightly better price for an asset to also cover the subordinate debt. ALL CREDITORS should have been part of the debt restructuring process to ensure that everyone's interests are looked after. It is likely that putting BBIPL into administration is the only way to ensure that everyone's interests are looked after. I will not agree to the offer on the table.