Find out who trousers what. And be appalled.
Poor Christopher Bailey.
Last summer, Burberry's CEO stood to trouser annual pay of £28m. Burberry's remuneration committee had also signed off a staggering £400,000 clothing allowance. Presumably he needed enormous trousers with especially capacious pockets.
But, in a triumph of outrage, the Burberry shareholders rejected the proposed package.
Rarely does a big company's shareholders challenge their CEO's pay packet. It's bad for business. In fact, only five times in the previous fifteen years had a FTSE 100 company provoked such dissent, despite larger and larger bonuses.
British boards' remuneration proposals have become a corporate equivalent of The Bollocks Game. You know the one. Where schoolkids shout "bollocks" as loud as they can without a teacher's rebuke. Boards simply push pay as far as they can without a shareholders' protest.
For the most part, no-one protests. And executives walk away with a trouserload of cash.
That's why we have started Trouserwatch.
In our next blog, we'll explain how executive pay has soared out of control. It's a stitch-up. And two things in particular are to blame.