Bob's bonus: Will Barclays shareholders buy it?

A few hours ago Barclays announced they will make it harder for Bob Diamond to claim all of his generous pay package this year.

Standard Life, who owns 2% of the bank, welcomed theconcession shortly afterwards and announced that they will support the 'rem report' - the pay deals that the bank's executives have agreed.

But one other major shareholder has just told me the move won't be enough to avoid a significant vote against - "all they're doing is making it a bit harder for him to collect the bonus," they said - and some people, I was told, are "pretty hacked off they have done it this late in the day," after weeks of wrangling.

Barclays' move is certainly unusual. And they have gone to huge lengths to try to head off the embarrassment of a chunky vote of protest against them at the AGM next week.

I'm told they have been asking individual institutional shareholders what concessions they would like to see. The scheme whereby half of Mr Diamond's bonus will be subject to the bank's performance improving appears to have been the idea put forward by Standard Life.

And in what has been described to meas a 'contrite' letter, Barclays have been forced to face up to the fact that for many of their shareholders, they have simply got it wrong.

In the letter to shareholders quoted to me they agree that "going forward a greater proportion of income and profit need to flow to shareholders" and "are committed to ensuring this shift happens as quickly as possible."

Basically, an admission that more cash needs to go to shareholders, less to the firm's top brass.

Remember not all shareholders have got hot under the collar about it. As one analyst reminded me earlier today, they are not all 'on a crusade'.

But from a couple of weeks ago, when Barclays told me they had 'no intention' of shifting position, they have moved because of the pressure that some shareholders have brought to bear.

Now sources there say 'we get it'.

What's not clear yet though, is if it will be enough. It is unlikely that more than 20% of shareholders disapprove, but a no vote from a sizeable minority still has the power to give the bank a bloody nose.