Ahh, good old politics of envy.
If he was working for a private company would this be such an issue. I heard this being discussed on the radio the other day and someone mentioned footballers who get paid vast amounts for doing very little, to which someone else replied that footballers aren't public employees.
But the point is, if you set up a publicly owned football club with pay limits, how long do you think it would last in the premier league when having to compete with the likes of Man Utd / City.
That is the dilemma because if this chap is not on a similar package to others in the business, he will simply leave and go somewhere else, just like Rooney would if Man Utd didn't pay him what he thought he was worth.
I have seen several reports, including one from the BBCs Robert Peston, say that this is likely to be one of the lower benefits packages, when compared to what will be the case with the private banks, though they haven't released this information hasn't been released yet.
Surely the best thing that any off us want, is for the bank to go back into private hands, or does anyone think it was a good idea that billions of taxpayers money was used to bail them out. If we want that money back, we need RBS to succeed and do well on the markets over the longer term, so that it can be sold off, at a profit, which will benefit the taxpayer.
I don't know much about this fella but he wasn't around during the banking crisis, (so can't really be blamed for it), is meant to be very good at turning business' around, and was there for given that job, (and pay package) by Labour, with the view of it being in our best long term interests.
Or would you rather pay peanuts and have some Monkey, (maybe Sir Fred Goodwin), running the bank.
Its very naive and simplistic to attack this man and his pay structure just because you don't like whats happened with the banking sector over the past few years.