NYTimes CEO to take $15 million exit package

http://www.reuters.com/article/20...7O20111221

(Reuters) - Janet Robinson, who will step down as chief executive of the New York Times Co on December 31, will receive an exit package in excess of $15 million, according to people familiar with the situation.



Personally, this is why it's difficult for me and a lot of Tea Party/conservative folk to take liberals seriously when they complain about "excess" executive compensation. It's well known that the Times slants hard left, yet do you think their editorials will be filled with complaints about their own CEO's pay at the Times? I doubt it.... only time will tell though. It's not like the Times is really growing circulation by leaps and bounds. They were shedding tens to hundreds of thousands every quarter for years. However, their online subscription might have stopped that for the time being. Nonetheless, the Times is far, far from being financially stable which begs the question to obama and his supporters ---- what did this lady do to merit such a ridiculous compensation? I'm one of the many thousands of laid off Times journalists can answer that one....

Kind of like a message I posted earlier to Rebound, I can't keep up with Obama and Occupy about when corporations are and aren't evil.

Seems your rant is not supported by your cite:

Quote : the size of Robinson's exit package prompted some criticism in the newsroom.. ... But Robinson is getting less than half of the $37.1 million in severance Craig Dubow received when he retired as Gannett Inc's CEO in October, after six years at the helm of the newspaper publisher and amid similarly dismal financial results ..... The aim of these meetings was to tell the story of how the Times Co's business has recovered since 2008,

Quote from 124nic8 : Seems your rant is not supported by your cite:

What wasn't supported and what did your quote debunk?

Quote from paperboy05 : What wasn't supported and what did your quote debunk?

You can decide for yourself.

Quote from 124nic8 : You can decide for yourself.

In that case I decide that was nothing more then your usual deflect, as your quote had nothing to do with the OP's "rant". So, are you going to accept that decision or actually post what you thought you were refuting?

damn i wish i was a ceo, then I wouldnt have to sift thru SD too much...

Quote from paperboy05 : In that case I decide that was nothing more then your usual deflect, as your quote had nothing to do with the OP's "rant". So, are you going to accept that decision or actually post what you thought you were refuting?

I don't care enough to try to persuade you.

But here's a clue: "excessive compensation." Can you connect the dots?

Quote from 124nic8 : I don't care enough to try to persuade you. But here's a clue: "excessive compensation." Can you connect the dots?

Just because a peer received more, doesn't mean her's wasn't "excessive".

Quote from qwertyaas : It's his usual spin of nothingness. Doesn't refute the point but brings up something that has nothing to do with the original point. Anyway, nothing new and business as usual.

Just cause you can't figure it out does not mean there's nothing there.

Quote from lemond : damn i wish i was a ceo, then I wouldnt have to sift thru SD too much...

No way, I would have plenty of free time as an ex-CEO. I would come on here and laugh at the ones crying at my pay while I'm sipping Dom Perignon and chilling on my yacht during a nice sunny day.

Quote from paperboy05 : Just because a peer received more, doesn't mean her's wasn't "excessive".

How do you define "excessive"?

Quote from 124nic8 : I don't care enough to try to persuade you. But here's a clue: "excessive compensation." Can you connect the dots?

Quote from paperboy05 : Just because a peer received more, doesn't mean her's wasn't "excessive".

Quote from 124nic8 : How do you define "excessive"?

Really? So suddenly $15million isn't excessive? If it was a FOX news executive, would you be saying the same?

And this is really what we couldn't figure out from your initial post? That since there was a more excessive bonus, the $15 million is not excessive?

Quote from 124nic8 : How do you define "excessive"?

I defer to Google.

Quote : ex·ces·sive/ikˈsesiv/ Adjective: More than is necessary, normal, or desirable; immoderate.

Quote from qwertyaas : Really? So suddenly $15million isn't excessive? That since there was a more excessive bonus, the $15 million is not excessive?

I'd say neither are inherently "excessive".

Though people were upset with Bank Of America's executives making about the same in bonuses. [bizjournals.com]

Quote : Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan will receive a $9 million all-stock bonus for his work in 2010, the bank said in a securities filing Monday. In addition, Tom Montag, head of the bank's trading and markets business on Wall Street, will receive $14.3 million in a stock bonus. Joe Price, head of consumer banking, and Chuck Noski, BofA's CFO, will both receive $4.8 million in stock bonuses.

Quote from paperboy05 : I defer to Google. I'd say neither are inherently "excessive".

Comparable peer's compensation is relevant to "normal."

But I really don't care to (further) argue semantics.