Fwiw my view is unchanged. I am still annoyed that Soco directors have been awarded a 100% bonus for failure. They did not achieve the 55,000 boepd target that was set as such I don't think they deserve a 100% bonus.
The only real positive I can see from Soco in recent times is buying back shares in the recent market weakness. But let's not forget we are discussing 2011 performance.
Bringing TGT online as far as I am concerned is MEETING EXPECTATIONS, WHY should directors that do their job be paid a 100% bonus for doing what was setout in their job description for the year?
I think Michael Johns Chairman of the Rem Committee should resign - I don't approve of his appointment in 2011, I have the view that he has done a poor job in setting Soco Remuneration.
I have more shares then Michael Johns, this individual holds under £30k of shares yet has the power to significantly influence the remuneration of a FTSE 250 board - I think the system is BROKEN and there should be a minimum shareholding for a director who is representing the interest of the MAJORITY shareholders?
How can it possibly be correct that someone who owns less then £30k of shares in an almost £1bn company influence the remuneration of the exec directors ?