Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Sep 2013 11:44 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless

Finland is boiling with rage this weekend over the $25 M bonus payment the CEO Stephen Elop is set to receive as he leaves Nokia after his two-year tenure. Questions are now being raised by the oddest aspect of the bonus: the board of Nokia seems to have given Elop a $25 M incentive to sell the handset unit cheaply to Microsoft way back in in 2010. This effectively means that the board hired a man who was given a giant carrot to drive down Nokia's overall valuation and phone volumes while preparing a sale to Microsoft. What could possibly be a reason to structure Elop's original contract in this manner? Did the board in fact end up promising Elop more compensation in case he sells the phone division than if he runs it with modest success?

Vindication. We were right all along.

Thread beginning with comment 573095
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Criminal?
by Radio on Tue 24th Sep 2013 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Criminal?"
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Wrong. The legal definition of libel is very restricted. As Thom and others genuinely think Elop was not acting in Nokia's best interests and have reasonable grounds to argue so, their opinion cannot be qualified as libel.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Criminal?
by lucas_maximus on Tue 24th Sep 2013 19:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Criminal?"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Wrong. The legal definition of libel is very restricted. As Thom and others genuinely think Elop was not acting in Nokia's best interests and have reasonable grounds to argue so, their opinion cannot be qualified as libel.


It depends what you think reasonable grounds is, doesn't it?

It is accusing the man of industrial espionage, with no proof. I don't think that is reasonable.

The share price was in decline well before he was hired and I said somewhere else on this thread that I don't believe rome can be built in a day, so it took a while for him to do his job and get stuff sorted.

https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=max...

The share price reached a low and then climbed. You can debate whether this was because of Elop, but it has climbed since last year and is recovering.

But saying he definitely did it and it was obvious, I don't think is fair or reasonable.

Edited 2013-09-24 19:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Criminal?
by Radio on Tue 24th Sep 2013 20:22 in reply to "RE[3]: Criminal?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

The share price was in decline well before he was hired

Eh, yeah, that was the 2008 financial crisis. Duh.

The share price reached a low and then climbed. You can debate whether this was because of Elop, but it has climbed since last year and is recovering
Then why are they selling?

Reply Parent Score: 1