John O'Neil New Chairman for Echo.

[I like to watch]

That actually one thing.
Seriously, you have read nothing at all in this thread to suggest JON is being a little fast and loose in his role with the ARU?
Tell me one thing then, why is the chairman paid about 3 times what the other board members are paid, if they all just attend the same meetings?
You think there may be some correlation between remuneration and responsibility/effort/time?

 

[Bruce Ross]

He is under contract to the ARU, if he broke the terms of that contract there would be a problem, he obviously hasn't so this entire thread is about 2 things"

If you like JoN or not.

A rhetorical question surely, wj. What's there not to like:

.

 

[RedsHappy]

Handling a deeply discounted Echo Entertainment $454m capital raising and a material profit downgrade with a complex bundle of new shareholders would faze even Totality Tony, perhaps not our fearless ARU CEO:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ng-details-today/story-fn91v9q3-1226396221513

 

[I like to watch]

He also has to oversee negotiations with the US pension funds over covenants securing the last years placement, to allow the capital raising to go ahead.
Lucky he is only part time!

 

[p.Tah]

And what's more he is the only employee at Echo so he has to do this all by himself.

 

[Groucho]

I'm completely neutral on JON (he has has his good and bad point as a CEO) but as a businessman myself I don't see any problem with non-executive directorships and chairmanships for CEOs, because I see them regularly, in businesses larger than the ARU. As long as conflicts are correctly resolved, they're a vital mechanism for sharing experience and building stronger companies.

 

[I like to watch]

And what's more he is the only employee at Echo so he has to do this all by himself.

Seriously JON is a big boy, he knows if he can handle both roles. He is a professional, if he slips up in one role it's a black mark against his name. He wouldn't venture done this path if he didn't think he could deliver on both.
This is just an excuse to try and kick JON again. Surprised no one has blamed ECHO for the Scotland loss yet

Oh Ok I get it now, these posts are ironic. I originally thought these statements were naive and simplistic.
So sorry ..very funny!
As if the employee should be the sole arbiter of whether he was conflicted....very good....LMAO as Newbie would say

 

[I like to watch]

I'm completely neutral on JON (he has has his good and bad point as a CEO) but as a businessman myself I don't see any problem with non-executive directorships and chairmanships for CEOs, because I see them regularly, in businesses larger than the ARU. As long as conflicts are correctly resolved, they're a vital mechanism for sharing experience and building stronger companies.

If JON was the CEO of the State Bank, your argument has merit. As John would be assisted by individual business heads an exco etc. The business would not require his hands on presence day in day out.
However the ARU is a different animal.
In 2010 JON earned more than the ARU, and his salary was 10% of the total payroll. To me this indicates a fiefdom that relies on him in totality, with many tasks that simply cannot be delegated. If that is not the case then his remuneration is out of whack compared to the profitability of the business and the total wages bill.
He can't have it both ways, either his remuneration is correct due to the all encompasssing role he contributes to on a daily basis,or he is overpaid

 

[p.Tah]

Oh Ok I get it now, these posts are ironic. I originally thought these statements were naive and simplistic.
So sorry ..very funny!
As if the employee should be the sole arbiter of whether he was conflicted..very good..LMAO as Newbie would say

I'm not that clever unfortunately ILTW. Just a smart arse trying to stir, but the more I read about the Echo situation, I'm not sure why anyone would want to take on this role.

 

[I like to watch]

Your kidding aren't you?
This is a perfect match for JON, spot fires, crisis meetings, back room dealings, Machiavellian plots.
He would be thriving in this, and TBH has a good track record in managing his way through events such as this.

 

[Groucho]

If JON was the CEO of the State Bank, your argument has merit. As John would be assisted by individual business heads an exco etc. The business would not require his hands on presence day in day out.
However the ARU is a different animal.
In 2010 JON earned more than the ARU, and his salary was 10% of the total payroll. To me this indicates a fiefdom that relies on him in totality, with many tasks that simply cannot be delegated. If that is not the case then his remuneration is out of whack compared to the profitability of the business and the total wages bill.
He can't have it both ways, either his remuneration is correct due to the all encompasssing role he contributes to on a daily basis,or he is overpaid

Many full-time CEOs hold non-executive directorships in other companies. The ARU allows them. It's regulation stuff.

 

[Moses]

Just listened to the recent G&GR podslam 'dialling in the rifle' and a thought occured to me - why does the ARU not have a managing director?

What are the conflicts that would occur with JON performing both roles?

Should he step down from one of these positions to free up time for his echo commitments? In doing so improve the checks and balances in the ARU governance structure?

 

[Bruce Ross]

Just listened to the recent G&GR podslam 'dialling in the rifle' and a thought occured to me - why does the ARU not have a managing director?

What are the conflicts that would occur with JON performing both roles?

Should he step down from one of these positions to free up time for his echo commitments? In doing so improve the checks and balances in the ARU governance structure?

I am obviously missing something here, Moses. As CEO isn't the great man automatically managing director?
.

 

[Moses]

I am obviously missing something here, Moses. As CEO isn't the great man automatically managing director?
.

Sounds like it's me who is missing something... I had thought these were separate positions, and when Juan described it as being both the bowler and umpire this re-inforced that idea to me. Is the convention in Australia that all CEOs are also MDs? Is there a differentiation that an MD sits on the board?

 

[churchills cigar]

I am obviously missing something here, Moses. As CEO isn't the great man automatically managing director?
.

MD is just that, the managing director however a CEO is the chief operating executive, as in a higher version of a GM, he is an employee if the company whereas directors in many cases are not necessarilybemployees.
A CEO is not need a director however they do report to the board but are NOT on the board.

 

[Bruce Ross]

Is the convention in Australia that all CEOs are also MDs? Is there a differentiation that an MD sits on the board?

As far as I'm aware, Moses, that is the usual situation in Australia. In the US the positions are sometimes separated.

Our glorious leader is both Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the ARU and, as indicated by the first of these titles, is a member of the Board. Normally one could conclude that we shall not see his like again, but we can only live in hope that after he has gone off to rescue some other organisation in distress, we may be so fortunate as to experience the Reign of JO'N Mk III.
.

 

[churchills cigar]

Apologies for not being clearer,
MD is a director and does not receive wages/salary, they may receive directors fees.
CEO is an employee, receives a salary/wages.
The two are not the same.
A CEA is not by its nature required to be a director ( on the board).
A director does not necessarily work in the company BUT, a CEA may also be a director which O'Neill obviously is, but being CEO in itself is not cause or reason to be MD, they are two separate positions entirely.
I hope that clears it up better.

 

[Groucho]

Apologies for not being clearer,
MD is a director and does not receive wages/salary, they may receive directors fees.
CEO is an employee, receives a salary/wages.
The two are not the same.
A CEA is not by its nature required to be a director ( on the board).
A director does not necessarily work in the company BUT, a CEA may also be a director which O'Neill obviously is, but being CEO in itself is not cause or reason to be MD, they are two separate positions entirely.
I hope that clears it up better.

I don't think that's quite right. Managing Directors and other directors are often employees, and CEOs are often directors.

The difference is mainly cultural: CEO is an American term while Managing Director is the traditional usage.

A director who isn't employed by a company is conventionally called a non-executive director, although again the Americans tend to mix this up a bit.

I'm the managing director of my company and also a salaried employee, as are all the other MDs that I know.

 

[suckerforred]

And this shows how confusing it is..... My understanding.

Managing Director is usually an employee as their role is usually more involved with the day to day running/direction of the business then other directors. They may be part-time but still employed.
CEO - also an employee. May or may not be a member of the board. Even if they are not a member of the board they attend board meetings as they report to the board and are the ones that have to implement board decisions. They may or may not be the Managing Director. Company I work for has a seperate MD and CEO.

Personally I don't like them being the same person as I feel that there needs to be a seperation in some of the duties performed by the roles, and it allows one person to have undue influence on the direction of the organisation. I also believe that this is the direction that governance structures and recomendations are heading. But happy to stand corrected.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

If JO'N goes, then who should replace him?

So far only David Gallop has been mentioned. Are there any other possibilities?

Please contribute to Gaggerland Executive Recruitment Services Ltd worldwide seach.