A great deal, but not for shareholders
I find this perplexing:
"Six Flags Inc. has agreed to pay Redskins owner Daniel M. Snyder $10.4 million to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in his bid to gain control of the company last fall, including a $5 million signing bonus for chief executive Mark Shapiro."
What? Why should shareholders possibly have to pay $10.4 million to reimburse a failed suitor? I suppose one could argue that companies wish to encourage suitors, but a far more likely scenario is that the Board and Officers of Six Flags simply want to use $10.4 million of shareholders money in order to preserve their standing in corporate America. It is this kind of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" that gets you later jobs as officers and directors. What's worse, however, it that is is just this kind of behavior that gives capitalism a bad name.
Hopefully Six Flags shareholders will reject the payment.
http://snipurl.com/p32j
"Six Flags Inc. has agreed to pay Redskins owner Daniel M. Snyder $10.4 million to reimburse him for expenses he incurred in his bid to gain control of the company last fall, including a $5 million signing bonus for chief executive Mark Shapiro."
What? Why should shareholders possibly have to pay $10.4 million to reimburse a failed suitor? I suppose one could argue that companies wish to encourage suitors, but a far more likely scenario is that the Board and Officers of Six Flags simply want to use $10.4 million of shareholders money in order to preserve their standing in corporate America. It is this kind of "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" that gets you later jobs as officers and directors. What's worse, however, it that is is just this kind of behavior that gives capitalism a bad name.
Hopefully Six Flags shareholders will reject the payment.
http://snipurl.com/p32j
posted by The Accidental Consultant | 6:55 AM
<< Home