IRISH Permanent chief executive Roy Douglas had to display a bit of neat footwork himself yesterday when the bank's £250,000 sponsorship of the Irish rugby team was given a severe kicking at its annual general meeting.

Shareholder Dan Carroll scrummed down and let loose, berating the bank for spending money on the team "a complete waste of money", he said. "They are a group of over paid under achievers who have brought nothing but disgrace, by winning the wooden spoon and by their head stamping activity on the field."

The crowd cheered as he pressed home the advantage "I think its ludicrous. If you want to sponsor some sport, sponsor someone in deprived areas of Dublin."

"It is also ludicrous that you can sponsor them, but you can't find money to pay widows who were deprived of their money," he added. When the Irish Permanent was floated as a public company, widows whose policies were still in their husband's names, were not entitled to free shares.

"Make a charitable donation call it what you like, just give them the money," he declared.

Roy Douglas moved in and took possession. Sponsoring the Irish rugby team was part of the Permanent's overall marketing strategy he said, and from the bank's perspective it had worked well. The bank sponsored a range of activities."

Chairman John Bourke also entered the ruck, saying that the bank had sought legal advice and could not obviate the problem of the widows missing out on free shares. The bank would like to do something, but there was nothing it could do.

Irish Permanent directors had an easy outing compared to last year, but several shareholders were still prepared to tackle them.

Mary Lavery criticised the bank for advertising a free visa card service last July, but then later introducing a £10 charge. She had been told it was introduced because the service had not proven to be as profitable as thought at first.

Mr Douglas said it was a small charge by industry standards and conceded that the company had got its research wrong.

Shareholders were notably less critical of directors' salaries this year, compared to the last annual meeting. Indeed, one shareholder went on at great length to demonstrate what great value the directors are and even went so far as to suggest that the remuneration committee pay them a bit more.

"The danger lies in paying them too little", he said. He calculated that the chief executive's salary of £250,000 plus is only one quarter of a penny per share.

If you had 300 shares, then this would represent the equivalent of 79p of your shares not even enough to buy a newspaper, he remarked.

Another shareholder said his big worry was "how does a man earning £500,000 per annum spend it?"

I'd be afraid of earning that much money," he confided to the board. "I'd go nuts."

However, one shareholder voiced criticism of the level of payments to non executive directors. They should be paid around £5,000 per annum, he said, not £20,000. And they should have shorter terms of office around three years.

He said directors who were being paid £20,000 per annum "would not rock the boat" because they were afraid they would be "booted off the board" and would lose these payments.