RM welcomes Government’s plans for IPO and free shares

[Hybrid]

Not worth bothering with,by the time we can sell they'll be worthless i'm afraid

[DGP1]

The can shove the shares up their arses, not something that will benefit us or the general public.

[UnhappyGremlin]

The can shove the shares up their arses, not something that will benefit us or the general public.

That's my view.
A couple of the lads at work think I'm nuts, but then, they are mesmerised by £££££££££££££££££.......

[fishtank]

The can shove the shares up their arses, not something that will benefit us or the general public.

That's my view.
A couple of the lads at work think I'm nuts, but then, they are mesmerised by £££££££££££££££££.......

They are nuts,the £££s are miles away.
If the sale were to go ahead tomorrow we won't own 10% of the company,we will own 10% of what the company might look like in 3 years time or in order to avoid paying any tax on the shares....5 years time.

Even supposing the company still exists in its present form and at the same value as today which is a bit of a punt,what will their terms and conditions look like after 5 years of private ownership?

[dvbuk55]

The can shove the shares up their arses, not something that will benefit us or the general public.

That's my view.
A couple of the lads at work think I'm nuts, but then, they are mesmerised by £££££££££££££££££.......

Unfortunately they have no idea how many or even IF it's going to generate any £s at all. It would perhaps have been a goer if there had been a guaranteed amount regardless of the price of the share in 3 years time.

[UnhappyGremlin]

Fishtank and dvbuk55, you're preaching to the choir.
I've tried telling them all that and more. Trouble is, they would appear to have spent the money already......
The same lads were unhappy when the pay deal was rejected. Something about missing out on £300!

[dvbuk55]

Fishtank and dvbuk55, you're preaching to the choir.
I've tried telling them all that and more. Trouble is, they would appear to have spent the money already......
The same lads were unhappy when the pay deal was rejected. Something about missing out on £300!

Believe it or not the day after the announcement and following immediately after the WTL someone said to me "when will we be getting the money" - being barred from WTLs I was unaware that the managers had been touting the deal, so I said "what money", to which he replied "the new pay deal" - I'm not sure who was responsible for the confusion because the union had rejected it outright on the day!

[sledger]

what is the qualifying period 3 months,6 months,12 months,? years,what if youre fixed term or temp contract isnt renewed do they have to go back,can they legally take back shares with youre name on them or is it all a make it up as you go along to suit yourself agreement,nothing set in stone divide and rule

[old-postie]

And once again part timers are shat on with the familiar and depressing term pro rata.
That's a great way to get in favour of all of this
NOT!

[wandle]

The can shove the shares up their arses, not something that will benefit us or the general public.

That's my view.
A couple of the lads at work think I'm nuts, but then, they are mesmerised by £££££££££££££££££.......

They are nuts,the £££s are miles away.
If the sale were to go ahead tomorrow we won't own 10% of the company,we will own 10% of what the company might look like in 3 years time or in order to avoid paying any tax on the shares....5 years time.

Even supposing the company still exists in its present form and at the same value as today which is a bit of a punt,what will their terms and conditions look like after 5 years of private ownership?

If you truly believe our wages will be slashed during the first five years of private ownership then, ironically, the shares would be well worth hanging onto. Think about it. With 150,000 employees, I would imagine the wage bill to be one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) costs that Royal Mail has. If operational revenues remain steady, and they slash the wage bill via redundancies (too many managers) and cuts to basic pay, the profits would rocket way above the recently-declared £400m. The shares would also rise substantially in value, and shareholders - including employees- would get income, in the form of dividend payments.

But would be a drop in the ocean compared to the lost wages

[UnhappyGremlin]

The can shove the shares up their arses, not something that will benefit us or the general public.

That's my view.
A couple of the lads at work think I'm nuts, but then, they are mesmerised by £££££££££££££££££.......

They are nuts,the £££s are miles away.
If the sale were to go ahead tomorrow we won't own 10% of the company,we will own 10% of what the company might look like in 3 years time or in order to avoid paying any tax on the shares....5 years time.

Even supposing the company still exists in its present form and at the same value as today which is a bit of a punt,what will their terms and conditions look like after 5 years of private ownership?

If you truly believe our wages will be slashed during the first five years of private ownership then, ironically, the shares would be well worth hanging onto. Think about it. With 150,000 employees, I would imagine the wage bill to be one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) costs that Royal Mail has. If operational revenues remain steady, and they slash the wage bill via redundancies (too many managers) and cuts to basic pay, the profits would rocket way above the recently-declared £400m. The shares would also rise substantially in value, and shareholders - including employees- would get income, in the form of dividend payments.

But would be a drop in the ocean compared to the lost wages

But that's very short term.
Many, including Fishtank and myself, have many years to go before our retirement, and even though what you say may be true in the short term, the long term effects would decimate any profits made from them, and it wouldn't take that long, especially taking into account the very real probability of the retirement age rising again, maybe more than once.

If you earned £5,000 from dividends in 5 years and then sold the shares for another £5,000 at that point which would make it tax free I think, that a total of £10,000. You suffer a £50 per week pay cut and it's gone in 4 years. Even if pay isn't cut, and we're just made to accept a pay freeze until further notice, then the money and its value to us will be gone in no more than 6 or 7 years. Then it gets back to real term cuts etc.
And don't rule out RM taking dividends into account when negotiating pay deals in the future. They'll use this stuff to try and get us to accept lower pay etc. for the 'good of the company', or some other such crap.

[Tone]

Morning all.

As a retired postman I was wondering if I would be entitled to any shares..... I can't find anything stating who is eligible? Anyone got any idea?

Cheers
Tone

[dvbuk55]

Morning all.

As a retired postman I was wondering if I would be entitled to any shares..... I can't find anything stating who is eligible? Anyone got any idea?

Cheers
Tone

NO! What would make you think you would be?

[RobertT]

If you earned £5,000 from dividends in 5 years and then sold the shares for another £5,000 at that point which would make it tax free I think, that a total of £10,000

£5,000 in dividends . £200 - £300 is probably more realistic.

[UnhappyGremlin]

If you earned £5,000 from dividends in 5 years and then sold the shares for another £5,000 at that point which would make it tax free I think, that a total of £10,000

£5,000 in dividends . £200 - £300 is probably more realistic.

I didn't say it was a likely figure. In fact, I think it more likely that dividends would total very little, less than yours in fact.

It was an example of how little difference the money from the shares in terms of dividends and sales would make. An outrageous amount like the one I suggest, whilst incredibly unlikely, to the point of just not happening, ever, would still not make financial sense to me. The point I was making was that even getting that level of money, it would not make up for the cuts in jobs, pay, T&C's, working conditions etc.

I think a more realistic, top end (as in the best possible amount likely, if everything goes well), figure of £2,500.00 max is the most we can hope for, and that wouldn't last long at all. 3 years of pay freezes would pretty much wipe out that 'gain'. Then we're back to the starting point, with no way of making up for the losses we will no doubt incur.