The board should not push its luck on pay after one of the shareholder spring’s more predictable revolts

And still they revolt. Actually, Pendragon would probably have copped a hefty protest vote on pay even in the depths of the shareholder winter. This is a company that borrowed heavily to spend £500m at the top of the market in 2006 to buy rival Reg Vardy, saw its share price fall 90% and last year hit shareholders for a nine-for-eight rights issue in which one third of the shares were left with the underwriters. Goodwill towards the car salesmen was always going to be in short supply.

The trigger for a 67% vote against the pay report was both the short- and long-term incentive proposals. The former were seen as too generous and the latter as too undemanding. Chairman Mike Davies, who suffered a 26% vote against his re-election, had no choice but to perform a handbrake turn and promise a full review of pay policies and a “close” consultation with shareholders.

But Pendragon has always been all about Trevor Finn. He has been chief executive since the demerger from conglomerate Williams Holdings in 1989 when Pendragon was tiny. He has survived the collapse in the share price because he is deemed to be the best in the business at selling cars.

Or, at least, that used to be popular view. The intriguing 14% against Finn’s re-election says not every shareholder regards him as indispensable. There’s another reason for the board not to push its luck on pay.