This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/24/sir-martin-sorrell-share-payout-wpp-jeremy-clarkson

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Sir Martin Sorrell defends controversial £36m share payout Sir Martin Sorrell defends controversial £36m share payout
(about 1 hour later)
Sir Martin Sorrell has defended WPP’s controversial long-term share scheme, from which he recently received a £36m payout.Sir Martin Sorrell has defended WPP’s controversial long-term share scheme, from which he recently received a £36m payout.
Asked whether he felt guilty about his pay package at the Advertising Week Europe conference on Tuesday, the WPP chief executive said: “It is not a question of guilt. It is a question about the way the system works.”Asked whether he felt guilty about his pay package at the Advertising Week Europe conference on Tuesday, the WPP chief executive said: “It is not a question of guilt. It is a question about the way the system works.”
The payout from the Leap incentive plan is likely to take Sorrell’s total pay for last year to about £40m, including his salary and short-term bonus. His total earnings from WPP over the past 11 years now amount to about £184m.The payout from the Leap incentive plan is likely to take Sorrell’s total pay for last year to about £40m, including his salary and short-term bonus. His total earnings from WPP over the past 11 years now amount to about £184m.
Sorrell defended the scheme, arguing that he was not the only one who benefited from the rise and rise of WPP’s financial performance.Sorrell defended the scheme, arguing that he was not the only one who benefited from the rise and rise of WPP’s financial performance.
“It is not one man, it is 17 people who participate [in the Leap plan],” he said. “Last year the total incentives paid were about £350m. It’s pay for performance. You forget [WPP’s] market capitalisation has increased by £10bn over the five years [of the Leap performance plan]. If people think there is something wrong with the system they can change it.”“It is not one man, it is 17 people who participate [in the Leap plan],” he said. “Last year the total incentives paid were about £350m. It’s pay for performance. You forget [WPP’s] market capitalisation has increased by £10bn over the five years [of the Leap performance plan]. If people think there is something wrong with the system they can change it.”
Sorrell also said the volatile world of advertising has had to deal with figures such as Jeremy Clarkson in the past.Sorrell also said the volatile world of advertising has had to deal with figures such as Jeremy Clarkson in the past.
“We’ve had Jeremy Clarksons and they’ve gone,” he said. “I know nothing about the ins and outs of Clarkson’s case. But if you say ‘do you have difficult decisions to make?’ [then yes] at some point in time you have to make those difficult decisions.”“We’ve had Jeremy Clarksons and they’ve gone,” he said. “I know nothing about the ins and outs of Clarkson’s case. But if you say ‘do you have difficult decisions to make?’ [then yes] at some point in time you have to make those difficult decisions.”
Sorrell sympathised with the difficulty that the BBC has faced over what to do about Clarkson’s behaviour – the presenter has been on a final warning since apparently uttering the N-word last year – acknowledging that it is natural to avoid the “evil day” of potentially having to fire someone.Sorrell sympathised with the difficulty that the BBC has faced over what to do about Clarkson’s behaviour – the presenter has been on a final warning since apparently uttering the N-word last year – acknowledging that it is natural to avoid the “evil day” of potentially having to fire someone.
“When taking difficult decisions with people the natural tendency of human beings is when they have difficult decisions to make they delay them,” he said. “When you have a difficult decision to make the natural tendency of any human being, human being the operative word, is to avoid the evil day. Sometimes it is very difficult to avoid it, it depends on the individuals involved.”“When taking difficult decisions with people the natural tendency of human beings is when they have difficult decisions to make they delay them,” he said. “When you have a difficult decision to make the natural tendency of any human being, human being the operative word, is to avoid the evil day. Sometimes it is very difficult to avoid it, it depends on the individuals involved.”
Oborne also said that the media was stacked against Labour leader Ed Miliband, with Rupert Murdoch’s titles out “for revenge”, and the Tories in a stronger financial position.
“The other thing Miliband did which is so splendid is to attack the rich,” he said. “No wonder the Tories have so much money to spend on vicious attack ads. It is the most one-sided election, the most uneven playing field we’ve had since 1992, much worse actually.”
Bell rejected this assertion arguing that there are various parliamentary laws that stop a spending mis-match in the official election period ahead of polling day.
“There are rules about what can be spent,” he said. “The suggestion that the Conservative party is much better funded than Labour party is just not true. It is better funded in the pre-election period. But there is a restriction on what you can spend and what you can’t spend [in the election period].
“So the idea that the Tories are spending lots and lots of money and Labour is spending very little, if that is the case, that is their choice. The amount is capped by Parliament. Let’s leave the myth out that all these rich advertising men pour money into the Tory party coffers.
“They should spend everything they possibly can on it, as much as they can on it because the most important thing people will do is make a decision on an election campaign.”