³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Bitter much?

I'm sure they want to see what publicity / share price bounce they can get out of it before taking action.

I expect they were glad the headlines were not '£1m pay off any £500,000 pa for life rip off'

You've been had.

Could be you win Chuckle of the Day award for that one, Robert!

I am sure, the BP board would like to stick it to the media. After all, almost everyone else is doing it to them.

But if Hayward is going to be the 'fall guy' for the Gulf affair, the Board doesn't want to 'dump' him too soon in case further problems arise that then stick like mucky tar to his successor. Can't remember the play or the actress right now, and you may have to forgive a bit of a misquote, but it could be a case of "To lose one Chief Executive is a tragedy. But to lose two, looks like carelessness ..."

Robert,

It's the carrier pigeons. Bob Dudley's bird accepting his promotion was slowed by sticky wings. Tony's bullet won't get fired till tomorrow as they're still degreasing the gun barrel.

I guess the illuminati need to go through this pantomime to retain the illusion of authority; they do have the power though.

So you make a massive blunder and then resign from your job with a massive amount of compensation. Given my incompetencies, I'd make a very good CEO... and a very rich one at that!

I don't think this is anything to do with dinosaurs vs. blogs, Twitter or Facebook. Over the weekend, both the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ and SKY news editions were falling over themselves to try and demonstrate that they had the inside track on this.

No doubt both have contacts which have leaked the story and details. But, bottom line, they're just leaks and chats with insiders... and ultimately, as much as it might annoy the media, it aint over till the fat lady sings.

In other words it's a board decision and the announcement will come at its convenience and pace. Rather than the media's.

Which is the way it should be.

4. At 09:36am on 26 Jul 2010, RiskAnalyst wrote:

"So you make a massive blunder and then resign from your job with a massive amount of compensation. Given my incompetencies, I'd make a very good CEO... and a very rich one at that!"

I'm not as good at incompetence - but I'm a willing learner

I'm sure I would make a good CEO too - I could bring down a bank or cut costs until I had an industrial accident.

Pick me - pick me!

Oh - didn't go to the right school, didn't hang out at the right 'clubs', refused to bow down to those who believe in inherited authority and I'm far too alturistic.

Sir Freddie Greedie's free if BP are interested - good track record - just the sort of man you want...

Robert, isn't it more than likely BP are just covering their backsides under stock market rules where any announcement like this has to announced to the stock exchange first?

Given the fact that even a leak could be seen as something which affects their share price, I think that's what this is. The decision has been made but they don't want it out until after the stock exchange hears.

I think they're also thinking they can bury all their news in one day, which is a bit optimistic but - like a lot of what they have done in this scenario - it's a very old school media way of thinking.

At least BP board did the right thing to ousr its CEO.
BP board has exemplified ethical and moral obligation in doing business to its executives that should be upholded.

What a shame that a highly succesful international company that pays massive dividends that are relied upon by pensioners on both sides of the Atlantic has been allowed to become the equivilent in vitriolic bile of Hitler or Stalin.

Only a deluded and desperate US president could believe that BP itended to have an oil spill or be responsible for the deaths of 11 men.

How purile and simple can the American public be?. A tragic event has occured. Yes, BP and the other companies must be held accountable for the financial costs of the clean up and Yes, investigations have to be made to identify if this was a genuine accident, or whether it could have been prevented.

What I don't get is the benefit of destabilising BP. Apart from wanting the company to make restitution, pension funds need the BP dividends. Unless there is an American hidden agenda to enable Exxon to acquire BP on the cheap.

It's about time our Prime Minister had a quiet word with Mr Obama and told him to "shut it" sometimes, "less is more". Further rhetoric will not stop the leak, nor bring back the dead men who tragically perished.

i would love to be the scapegoat and come back as a "consultant" on the same money, no hassle for carrying the can.

All my life I have struggled to do my best at work, to deliver the right result often in the face of extreme difficulty, and thus bring success to the business. It used to be called the Protestant Ethic. Now it would seem to be the mug's game.

What you have to do these days is not work but to have a career, be wholly self-centred, smarm your way up the ladder by being good-looking, good company, one of the boys and always be on the winning side. Then once you have the top job you can fill your boots with an obese salary. Then as your weaknesses are exposed you can quietly let yourself be shuffled off as rich as Croesus.

This is rewards for failure; pure and simple.

#5 is spot on - BP's board make the decision, not the media.

The delay's probably due to coming to terms of remuneration for the next CEO.
Or maybe they're coming to realise that Dudley was MD of BP Americas and wondering what he was upto while safety was such a big issue at BP America?
Can you imagine an American, competing with the ExxonMobils of this world who pay their CEO's in the tens of millions of dollars, settling at what Hayward gets as a relatively "paltry" £1 million per year?
I'm not condoning it, just pointing out the competitive reality. (But, then again, as they say "You get monkeys when you pay peanuts".)

I also note that the Gulf of Mexico incident appears to me to be a safety issue. If so, it is surprising that there is in fact a Director responsible for safety issues under a Chairman's commission. The said Director is Cynthia Carroll whose role on the BP Board is "Member of the chairman’s and safety, ethics and environment assurance committees".
So what was Cynthia Carroll doing about safety, ethics and environmental protection while all this was going on?
Or was she too busy earning her millions as CEO of Anglo American and now chairing AngloPlats?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

As someone who specialises in crisis communication, I have been grateful to BP for providing a bookful of lessons into the dos and don'ts of crisis management (to be honest, there's more content available for the latter). The mis-handled announcement of Tony Hayward's departure looks likely to provide fodder for a further chapter.

Whilst some may argue that it's up to BP and not the media to decide when the announcement is made (and in theory that's correct), the fact is that the cat is well and truly out of the bag. This morning, I've watched ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Breakfast and Five Live all debating Hayward's departure at length, and the rest of the media are engaged in exactly the same exercise.

Each of these items features a handful of "expert commentators" including ex-BP employees, BP investors and branding experts. The only organisation not represented in this discussion seems to be BP. As a consequence, the perception of them and their senior management team is being created by people who do not know the full story and who may not have BP's best interests at heart. This cannot be in BP's best interests and they need to start controlling the content and timing of the message NOW.

BP are doing this too quickly - there are still things that can go wrong that they will need to blame him for. He should go when the relief well operation is complete and the well is finally plugged. You could argue there should even be a period of clean up as well as this may well reveal some unknowns

The fact that they are doing this now is evidence that they are letting themselves get pushed around by the media.

But perhaps Dudley is only temporary - who knows ...

It seems to be open to question just how much BP is responsible for the disaster. Whilst it seems inarguable that BP bears some responsibility, it is clear that of the various companies involved, it has been the only one to fully accept financial liability.

It also seems to be coming clear that concerns over the lining of the well were incorrect, and perhaps more fire ought to be directed at Transocean over the failure of the BOP to do its stuff.

In that respect, perhaps it would be fairer to Mr Hayward for BP to agree terms they must contractually meet (severance and pensions) but state that it will determine whether Mr Hayward was simply the whipping boy (and thus entitled to a reward for heroically filling that role) or responsible for the problems (and therefore not entitled to any bonus) after the dust has settled and all enquiries are complete.

I also agree with #5.

In my opinion, this disaster has been made worse overall by the media and politicians. The deaths of 11 workers, the oil spill and subsequent environmental and economic hit are truly tragedies and very upsetting. I doubt that the grandstanding and posturing by lots of selfish politicians has advanced the capping, clean-up and compenstation one iota.

As BP has been made the sole scapegoat - whipped up by the media - I can understand why Mr Hayward will need to fall on his sword. But this is something that is premature and wrong as there is increasing evidence that the blowout was a result of poor provision, maintenance and management of specific pieces of technology hired - not owned - by BP. It is akin to someone who hires a chauffeur-driven car being blamed when the car crashes due to its brakes not having been maintained correctly by the rental company.

I wish Mr Hayward all the best in the future. He's been one of the good guys in all of this.

#11

Too true. Companies seem to be split between 'wanters' and 'doers'. The wanters strive to build their position, their earnings and their careers. The doers believe in creating something and get pleasure from seeing a result. The wanters get rich, the doers get put upon. There's alwasy been an element of this but certainly in the UK it feels very bad right now. Its now plain for young people to see that doers in companies get nowhere, whereas in the past the contrary illusion was maintained.

When wanters get the power they strive for most of their energies are spent protecting themselves from the achievements of doers - denigrating and marginalising them.

As I was once told - 'your only a "tekky"..' Actually the top 'tekky'. Try saying that in Germany. But what do they know?

Perhaps it would be better for the media to continually ask Obama what he thinks should be being done differently than BP have done, as regards commitment to the well capping and clean up operations.

I am glad that our nuclear industry has far better fail safes employed than what were required in the oil industry, however now they are in charge of that , i dont suppose we can feel too confident for an incident free future.

# 17: Mark, Your speculation about liability is (probably) inaccurate. BP is the Operator, its joint-venturers Anadarko (claiming gross negligence and therefore pleading to be let off the hook) and Mitsui are likely jointly and severally liable under contractual arrangements between them. Severity of fault and who is liable depends on whether the fault was negligence, gross negligence or wilful misconduct. The latter two are very difficult to prove in a court of law.
Transocean, whatever its faults may have been, "only" hired out the drilling rig to the Operator and its joint-venturers. Contractors in the petroleum business never assume blow-out or consequential damages risks (pollution and clean-up)... it is simply not their business, as they don't get the reward, and they don't have the financial capacity.

Every CEO knows that they will be kindly asked to walk the plank and take one for the team, should the risk finally materialise. Its part and parcel of the job and comes with huge incentives.

The top fatally wounded CEO of all time was Stan O'Neal who earned $48m in 06, $46m in 07 and a whopping $161.5m upon leaving the firm.

Rational logic would imply that Board members should be making CEO's work damn hard for their compensation, however it all goes down the hill when the CEO pulls out massive profits for the Board, taking on an astronomical amount of risk that pays off in the short term but sucker punches the firm in the long run, whilst hiding this risk using smoke and mirrors.

Board worships CEO untill the ship runs aground, or in BP's case ruptures the oil well.

A very good book on this issue -

Am I missing something?

We never hear any comment about the contractors who were actually carrying out the deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, namely Halliburton and Transocean. Oooops! but they are American companies and studiously ignored by the American press and government. It is more PC in the Land of the Free to knock foreigners.

If you employed a decorator to paint your house, and a scaffolder to errect the scaffolding, and subsequently the decorator dropped a can of paint down the sewer, who is responsible for the polution? You?

BP were the main contractor, Halliburton and Transocean the subcontractors employed to drill the well, surely they hold some responsibility?

@ClasticIcon #21- thanks for your comments, but in any hire arrangement I would have expected the hire company to be responsible if it hires out defective equipment.

Please note I did not say that BP should be absolved of blame, only that blame (and financial consequences) be more fairly apportioned. Also in this light, one would question to what extent the US Authorities should be held responsible in their "Drill Baby, Drill!" attitude, and possibly consequent lax regulatory oversight, prior to this accident.

I think it would be nice just for once for the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ news to report the news! We might just have to change its name otherwise to the "³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Rumour and Speculation" department.

A question to Robert and the rest of the media:

Which would you prefer?

A CEO very poor at public relations but very good technically who finally got the well head capped and relief well drilling on time

OR

A CEO very good at public relations and poor technically where the well head was still not capped and oil gushing out at the same rate as day 1?

Hmm. go figure.

"The danger for the BP board is that in refusing to be rushed, it creates an impression of being inflexible and unresponsive."

Stop whining!

In refusing to be rushed the BP board creates an impression of refusing to be rushed. Which is admirable.

The danger for the media is that in trying to suggest anything more than that, it creates the impression of acting like a petulant child.

22. At 11:05am on 26 Jul 2010, RiskAnalyst wrote:

"Rational logic would imply that Board members should be making CEO's work damn hard for their compensation, however it all goes down the hill when the CEO pulls out massive profits for the Board, taking on an astronomical amount of risk that pays off in the short term but sucker punches the firm in the long run, whilst hiding this risk using smoke and mirrors. "

Very well said - it was only the other day I saw someone actually tried to defend CEO's by implying that "not everyone could do their job as well as they do"

....in the case of some recent CEO's they're probably right as ordinary people wouldn't be able to live with themselves knowing that they were in charge when such a disaster happened.

Never mind "I want my life back" - what about the lives of all the sea creatures in the Gulf which have come to an abrupt end thanks to your 'poor risk assessment'.


Bankers, CEO's politicans - they're all playing the same game - make it look good in the short term adn get out before the house of cards you create collapses and you're found out.

If you're very skilled at it you can make a comfortable living from it - like Adam Crozier for example.
Never achieved anything long term and strangely all the place he leaves seem to go downhill afterwards.
...still when you start your career at Saatchi and Saatchi it's no surprise PR is your strong point.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Tony Hayward has taken all the flak but it is totally impossible for any CEO running a multi-national company to micro-manage everything 24/7.
BP has got its priorities right in dealing with the immediate aftermath of the accident - it will be very interesting to see what the commentators say when the results of the various investigations have been completed and the role/responsibilities of US companies involved are exposed.

I don't think Hayward should go at all. The reason I say that is that there is clear evidence that he has been tightening the safety culture across the group since he took over. The safety problems have overwhelmingly been in the American operations which are only about a third of the group's business and appear to have been resistant to change. So I would fire the guys in the American operations responsible for designing and drilling the well plus whoever is in charge of the US operations as a segment.

@ 11. At 10:08am on 26 Jul 2010, stanilic wrote:

> have a career, be wholly self-centred, smarm your way up the
> ladder by being good-looking,

Well, if looks were the only criterion, I'd be in great demand!

> good company, one of the boys and
> always be on the winning side. Then once you have the top job you
> can fill your boots with an obese salary. Then as your
> weaknesses are exposed you can quietly let yourself be shuffled
> off as rich as Croesus.

But you are right about the other things. Everybody wants to be a Sir Greedie nowadays, eh?

Mr Peston, like a good portion of the media 'comment' on this disaster, at this point you clearly don't have anything of substance to say, so can I suggest you wait until there is something material to report and then comment on that.

26. At 11:53am on 26 Jul 2010, excellentcatblogger

How about.....a world where companies are not so focused on maximising profit that they don't engage in cost cutting measures which will inevitably lead to mistakes and disasters.

I don't think this is Tony's problem, it's actually Lord Browns - but he's been too quick - the sly old fox - and jumped over the lazy dog already!
However it doesn't matter who did the deed, the point is the deed will always be done as currently that's exactly what defines you as 'successful' in today's CEO world. This will continue until we drop monetary gain as an indication of success.

Who cares about Tony Hayward - it's not like he's going to be hard up this christmas - unlike the 3 million odd who will be unemployed by then with no redundancy left and no chance of another job.

The worlds tiniest violin just snapped in my fingers playing a tune for Tony.

33. At 12:31pm on 26 Jul 2010, Iain wrote:

"Mr Peston, like a good portion of the media 'comment' on this disaster, at this point you clearly don't have anything of substance to say, so can I suggest you wait until there is something material to report and then comment on that."

Robert - don't listen to this kiljoy - just speculate away all you want because we all stopped believing the media a long time ago.

I reckon aliens have infiltrated the BP board and are going to 'mind meld' Tony into staying while they create a replacement android which looks like John Dudley - as the real John Dudley is in fact on Persipious VII in quadrant 4 of the space federation sector 12.

Now print that on your blog Roberto Pestono - go on, I dare you....

Sad fact is that Hayward improved the BP's safety record and now pays the penalty for it. Why is it that all BP's problems always comes from American operations? Alaska, White City and now this. BP took the blame for White City incident but the mistakes and the criminal carelessness from the staff was breathtaking. Union Carbide never admitted their liability and the manager is still in USA? BP admitted their liability and are paying for it which in today's world is so unusually honest but that's BP. Oh forgot! There are 50 American firms in Libya and four British???

I was talking to a friend of mine last night. And he said Tony Hayward is not to blame for what has happened. I told him he is the only person to be blamed for what happened. Because he was in charge of the company. Let alone how much they paid him every year to make sure that everything was up to scratch.

P.S Robert please keep up the good work. I feel really good when I hear you reporting things that matter to us all.

The issue I find interesting is 'contractual obligation' with regard to his serverance terms.

My guess is we will hear that, regardless of his performance, he must be given his £10m pension pot and his £1m 1 years pay. This is a contractual obligation.

Yet in the public sector people are hearing a very different message from Lord Snooty and Co. - apparently 'contractual obligation' applies only to the the allegedly super efficient private sector.

Bank Lending: At your meeting with Vince Cable today, did you suggest that Banks are not very good at lending unsecured, risk based capital and neither should they be, especially now as they rebuild their Balance Sheets. What we need is a Government that will act as a cataylst to the Stock Market. Aim and Plus Market Companies need the Markets to be the life blood of capital. Yet over recent Labour years they have been ignored, and Companies have struggled to raise capital via Placings, Rights Issues etc. AIM shares should be ISA eligible, Stamp Duty and CGT should be removed or reduced. Healthy markets encourages International Investment, supports Coys with risk capital, builds an Investment culture and removes pressure from Banks allowing them to focus on traditional secured finance.

Tony Hayward's personal reputation has stood up well during the crisis.

I wonder why. He's useless at spin.

It may be because he's a competent and caring individual who does an excellent job. Some of us believe in genuine accidents and unforeseeable events.

When we sacrifice the likes of Tony Hayward without a fair hearing and promote the interests of the likes of Digby Jones or Willie Walsh, we may be rejecting decent competent management in favour of celebrity, spin and arrogance.

If he's a crook - lock him up and throw away the key later. Somehow I don't think he is.

Give me an imperfect engineer over a celebrity any day.

Tony Hayward has to go irrespective of whether he is ultimately deemed to be responsible. If this happens on your watch that is the honourable thing to do. As for his severence etc. that should be held in escrow until investigations have been done and facts established. CEO's should have this sort of thing written into their contracts. It's not as if there would be a shortage of people wanting to do their jobs.

28. At 11:54am on 26 Jul 2010, writingsonthewall wrote:
....in the case of some recent CEO's they're probably right as ordinary people wouldn't be able to live with themselves knowing that they were in charge when such a disaster happened.

Isn't there some evidence that such people need to see the victims, like those who died and those who have now had their lives changed forever, as 'them' in order for them to be so, well, callous. I think it may be what the trainers of armies, priosn guards etc try to make their students believe.

6 - "didn't go to the right school, didn't hang out at the right 'clubs', refused to bow down to those who believe in inherited authority"

If only having a 'class war' chip on your shoulder was a neccessary attribute, you'd walk into the job.

I cannot agree more with the posters who hgave highlighted the way BP have been treated. As a company, althougth their PR has been poor, their response has been excellent - they have not shirked responsibility (unlike other companies developing the field with them) and their aid of the local populations exemplary.

If I were BP I would have their chief exec stay on another three years to make sure that this never happens again, and, if it does, to have a ready manual of how to cope.

The behaviour of the US government has been scandalous in the way it has sought to undermine BP despite all their efforts. I wonder what their response to a 'US' oil company would have been?

There's no need for BP to spend so long on 'severance terms' with TH.

Statutory redundancy is easy to calculate, the directgov website provides a calculator. SR is now the regular compensation for 'normal' workers who are no longer required. One rule for all....

Actually TH was doing a good job before this huge mess. But he wasn't doing a CEO's job, more that of a senior operations manager in the UK. As the CEO he WAS responsible for those who made errors in the US. And any error that allegedly costs £20bn or so HAS to be the responsibility of the CEO. How could the company have been run such that subcontractors or relatively junior engineers in the Gulf could have brought it to its knees?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

> The danger for the BP board is that in refusing to be rushed, it
> creates an impression of being inflexible and unresponsive.

It's just face-saving - and if they move slowly, we regard them as fat cats who are too dozy to get out of the way. Look, these guys have no more face to save. They lost _all_face when the Deepwater Horizon blew up. They'd never even heard of the Macando Well.

If they are too slow to keep track of what's going on, then they have to find more suitable employment, maybe flipping burgers. We can't be doing with so much deadweight at the top of our firms.

42. At 1:49pm on 26 Jul 2010, copperDolomite wrote:

"Isn't there some evidence that such people need to see the victims, like those who died and those who have now had their lives changed forever, as 'them' in order for them to be so, well, callous. I think it may be what the trainers of armies, priosn guards etc try to make their students believe."

...it's like that show on the telly - where the boss goes undercover in his own company (or council)

How could you run a company effectively and not know how it works at the very bottom? You don't need to know every last detail but you cannot make well judged decisions based on an 'overview' presented to you by someone from middle management.

Sir John Harvey-Jones used to do exactly this in his troubleshooting series - and with spectacular results.

The ultimate answer is a rotating CEO where everyone does it for a week, from the actual CEO down to the cleaner - reversing alienation in the work place which is going to diabilitate us all eventually into mindless monkeys.

The whole board needs to go. The problems with safety are systemic in BP and the Board have not tackled them, the Boards response to the diaster has been pathetic and destoryed shareholder value and made the UK look like a laughing stock (I know that 35/40% of BP is American owned and that its probadly the USA'a largest indigenous Oil and Gas producer) but the US public doesn't know that, senators certainly don't. When you add on the subject of Gadaffi, Lockerbey, prisioner release you see BP' opponents (other oil companies) really stiring it up against them in the US. It will take an Oil crisis or some brilliant management to save BP from being takenover cheaply much to the loss of the UK. The Swedish Chairman is completely out of his depth, time to clear out all of BP's board, the mantra of "we are the lowest cost deep water oil exprolation company in the world" must not be heard again within St James.

43. At 1:55pm on 26 Jul 2010, AndyC555 wrote:

"If only having a 'class war' chip on your shoulder was a neccessary attribute, you'd walk into the job."

Well you will contiue to dream you are 'middle class' - right up until the point you get your P45 - or you have to wind up your tax consultancy....at which point the realisation that you were working class all along will hurt you more than most - especially when they reject you for being aloof.

...and why would I need to 'walk into a job' - I always 'walk into a job' because I get them based on ability and not which school I went to.

One thing you'll learn my friend is for all their 'posh talk' - the ruling class 'aint so clever as you give them credit for.

Still - I suppose slaves don't like class wars - don't want to rock the boat eh? Happy with your lot are you?

Classic.

44. At 2:12pm on 26 Jul 2010, EmKay wrote:

"I cannot agree more with the posters who hgave highlighted the way BP have been treated"

Are you forgetting all the cost cutting Lrod Brown introduced to give 'shareholder value' which led to this broken line outsourcing in the first place?

....or was that a different BP - one you don't like to remember...

How frustrating it must be for Mercury (aka Robert Preston) and the rest of the lynch mob (ably headed by President Obama and his posse of truth seeking Congressmen) that the BP board is not joining in the gaderene rush to judgement.
There seems to be precious little evidence so far that Tony Hayward was any more responsible for the oil rig explosion and consequent pollution than any of the millions of US consumers clamouring for cheap petrol and the US government which licences and regulates drilling 5,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico.
There are lessons to be learnt from this disaster, which cost 11 lives. The current unseemly rush to judgement and summary execution of BP's figurehead is no substitute for careful evaluation of this whole sorry saga.

Hi Robert,

Interesting piece you did on the ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ One o'clock news today regarding your discussions with Vince Cable about the banks lending more money to small businesses etc, however, more importantly, I liked the stripey necktie you were sporting,.....where did you buy it!

~9

Well said DavidofWatford - my sentiments entirely - apart from the fact that BP do not entirely know what caused the BOP to fail and under what circumstances were operating at that time - BP have taken interim responsibility and their share price has suffered to boot!

This could mean they are fair game for another oil company and riding the back of a disaster as Obama has done leaves a nasty taste to the whole affair.

Yes - Hayward will eventually get a 'pay off' well why wouldn't he - he has been vilified by almost everyone just for being a CEO and 'spokesman' for BP.

We all profit from oil - we are all complicit - be it in respect of pensions, shares, etc., etc.

41. At 1:44pm on 26 Jul 2010, engineer99 wrote:
...severence etc. that should be held in escrow...

In one!

In fact, for the lack of such common sense we have to suffer penury for generations just so that the Sir Greedies can live in luxury.

Just guessing, but you wouldn't be an engineer by any chance?

50 - 'posh talk' 'ruling class'. lol.

You are funny, you need to throw off your prejudices. And you ought to make your mind up. One post you're saying you wouldn't get a job because you didn't go to the right school, the next post you're saying you can get any job becuase of your ability.

Happy with my lot? You bet I am. No chip on MY shoulder. Working class? Middle class? Much of it's a stae of mind. Try freeing yours up.

As for BP, I hope YOU bought at £3 a share. Look at it now, £4.13 a share. Over 33% in little more than a month. Can't get that in the Co-Op savings club.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#49

Takeover in sight. Yep, Obama has apparently given Exxon the clearance for any bid and of course Gazprom and PetroChina could be instructed to do so. US big oil was only stirring it against BP for this outcome (it certainly wasn't stirring it to get a deep sea drilling ban!). The 'special relationship' means we Brits will be expected to see Exxon as a white knight. Hmmm.

To cap it all (not the well, events), I read Michael O'Leary at the weekend quoted as saying that whilst Easyjet is embroiled in a spat with Sir Stelios, Air France will snap it up.

If you're a British company you trip and you're eaten. With friends like Digby Lord Jones, it's not surprising. He bragged that the UK has some of Europe's finest manufacturers. But, the interviewer cautioned, they're all foreign owned. His response was that it mattered not one bit. Well he is completely and massively wrong. It matters hugely for the future of the UK. But that's another story..

Does anyone else think that theres a certain irony that the news of hayward leaving is "leaking" out??

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

All the America bashing won’t change reality. We the USA consume the most oil, thus are a major potential customer for whatever the future of BP is (who else they going to sell to to replace that business, China?).

That future has much more chance of being successful with Americans in charge, period! Fire all the BP America bosses? How would you see that helping BP continue to stay successful selling product to the US?

Face it, BP is going to change and is no longer what it was pre spill. Like it or not that is the political reality and the USA is a massive market. I would not be surprised to see a name change as some point in the future.

Thanks for the insight, Robert. You usually have a finger on the pulse. Have you ever thought of going in to Politics?

Can you please tell me - if the UK economy really is recovering quicker than expected, why is the pound now down to 83p per Euro? It was 70p originally, but 13 years of Labour mismanagement has had its effect.

Should we now be seeing the pound picking up again?

Couldn't agree more with Emkay and others (and happy to admit I am a very small BP shareholder). The Board should not let itself get "bounced " by media (even R Peston!) greedy for the next headline. Obama has lost any credibility due to the way he has vilified all at "British" P and doubtless would love to see the price depressed to the point where Exxon can take over BP.. Some "Special Relationship"!

Iain G

Not before time is my opinion. Anyone who prefers to go sailing rather than remain at the helm of one of the biggest offshore oil disasters in recent history deserves to be called to account. What he has re-ignited is the long held belief that the captains of UK big business stand aloof and never mix it with the real world. Not only that but to display his arrogance directly to the American people just beggars belief. I don't believe he is seeking to get out, the way BP works, he has been asked to resign which of course means there is a big pay-off and retirement package coming his way and for what? Being incompetent, displaying extreme arrogance, incapable of managing such a disaster....try all 3. If he had any sense of duty and responsibility, he should donate any golden handshake to the coffers that BP need to create to pay their debts to the American people........and I'm a UK citizen and ex-employee of BP!

Ted's back. There's a welcome thought.

Nobody says fire 'the Americans'. Several said fire those on the ground responsible for BP America - be they Brits, Japanese, Russian, Chinese ... or American.

So, lets get this right, to sell into America we need an American running the company? Vive free trade, not.

America is a big land mass. But that way will become a small island. You might not like your friends but it's their duty to say it as it is.

Evening Robert, I see the Hayward story drags on and on.
BP are a private company and the Board can appoint or dismiss whoever they like (in theory).
US media are now involved stoking up indignation about the size of Tony's contractual pay off -mind your own business US and we will mind ours.
Good luck to Mr Bob Dudley (ex Amoco?) in his manoevering to become next CEO, are you sure that only £1 million salary will be enough?
Give Mr Hayward his life back, his family have had to endure the hate and bile poured out from the US media frenzy. Mr Hayward has had to endure the scorn heaped upon him by that nice Mr Obama (shame on you).
You will be better off emotionally out of this mess which you did not directly control or have detailed knowledge of.
By the way Robert, do you remember the story of another BP CEO -Mr Robert Horton in the early 1990's? The BP board are not fit for purpose and should all resign.

Please Mr Peston do try to speak in english

@Mark #24; Agreed; the US regulatory authorities (MMS now name changed to BoCM or sum such) have by all accounts been shambolic and corrupt. But Obama din't want to hear about that; he just wanted someone to take the flak off him.

Robert Peston on the news this evening stuttering his way through an explanation of what's going on when in fact there are now media rumours of hayward going to TNK-BP as a Board Member.
Just shows you, all this media speculation was cooked-up at the weekend to turn a desultory Sunday into one to sell more newspapers, then everyone jumped on the band-wagon; including the Wall Street Journal, usually reticent.
I wonder how much these journos really check their stories when "people familiar with circumstances" whicper in their ear?

In refusing to be rushed the BP board creates an impression of refusing to be rushed. Which is admirable.

Errr no. In refusing to be rushed the BP is simply demonstrating it doesn't actually know what to do and doesn't actually have much experience in exercising real influence over the executive.

@ 43. At 1:55pm on 26 Jul 2010, AndyC555 wrote:

> If only having a 'class war' chip on your shoulder was a
> neccessary attribute, you'd walk into the job.

France stopped the class war by cutting off the heads of the toffs. It would do the English good to install Madame la Guillotine in The City!

TedInDenver wrote:
All the America bashing won’t change reality.

Sadly, xenophobia does change reality. Inevitably for the worse.