Bluedell

Thanks. The STV article explains it better. What he is actually saying is that he can't remember the exact legal reason, which is fair enough. He obviously knows the rough reason but there will have been some fficial notification and it's not unreasonable for him not to remember the exact phrases and it's just a way for him to escape giving details, but he's entitled to want to give the exact reasons given if he wants.

The bugger couldn't even stay for the second half

I'm too young to remember the 72 team but the 92/93 team the best that I recall.

Whyte can be criticised for a lot of things but I fail to see what the issue is in respect of the article. The opposing lawyer says he's unreliable? So what? Do you expect him to say he's wonderful? It's a cheap soundbite. As for the issue in respect of his disqualification, what relevance is that to this case? He's quite right not to give any details on it. It's just anti-Rangers reporting by the Record again.

That's OK in theory but if the club can't provide any finance to get the project set up then it's unlikely it will get any direct benefit, but there should be indirect benefits. There's also a business risk involved and it may be better if we aren't involved. I'm not convinced that the same economic situation exists as it did in 2007 and therefore I'm not sure if any such project will get off the ground any time soon.

THe question may have been asked but wasn't answered or wasn't allowed to be published.

Agreed. I doubt that tax evasion would come into it if the ruling goes against us. We were quite open about what we were doing, disclosing the use of a trust in the accounts each year, a copy of which would be sent to HMRC, so I can't see that they would ever look to get us for evasion.

I presume that it happens all the time. The arguments and evidence has been heard and now needs to be considered and reviewed, which could take some time, before the decision is announced.

If it had been thrown out then they would have announced it. Yes, wind-up most likely.

Craig, we don't know when the contract was agreed to but presumably it was 9. The 5 I've mentioned plus Bain and McIntyre, and McClelland and AJ. There's just so many unanswered questions on this. There's an argument that Whyte knew what it wopuld take to get rid of Bain and should have adjusted his offer to reflect that, and shouldn't now complain.

Of course not, but I could have a good guess at who it wasn't (Greig, King, P Murray, McGill, Muir). Agreed.

So who on the board decided that it would be a good idea to change the terms of Bain's contract and give him a fixed term and what was the rationale behind it? I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a large degree of instigation from Bain himself on the issue. I can't see why one of the others would think it was be a good idea. However the board (presumably) must have given the OK on it and, yes, you are correct that they also deserve some criticism, although it's difficult to name any specifics on it as we would not know how the voting went.

Hopefully but after years of seeing such ventures being a waste of time and money, it's difficult to be optimistic.

I don't think anyone is criticising the club for doing it. It's just that some of us are sceptical as to the benefit, particularly in the current economic environment and given the image of the SPL or lack of in some markets. However it's certainly worth a go providing our commitment isn't too significant. I don't see the problem in reviewing this with a touch of realism.

It depends for the reason for the "sacking". In Bain's position, I'm guessing that they would argue that they are making him redundant, particularly given that Russell has a different title. I would thyink that they would find it difficult to prove that he deserved to get sacked and when that happens people normally get a pay-off based on the notice period in their contract.

It was a constructive dismissal. I don't think that the fact that he ultimately resigned after being suspended for a period of time means a lot.

Is Bain due something for him leaving? Yes. I don't have a problem with that. What would a reasonable sum be for someone in his position? If I was drawing up a contract for CEO of Rangers I'd be going for 6 months. I don't know what Bain had in his contract before Murray left but suspect it was something like that. If it had been a year then I could accept it and probably wouldn't question it, but I suspect that Murray wasn't the sort of guy who would tie in positions like CEO of Rangers with a massive notice period when he didn't have to. Is 2 years reasonable? I don't think so. A fixed term contract is very strange and it just strikes of directors knowing that they are going to get the boot and trying to screw the owners and is morally wrong and Bain deserves criticism for it. Many PLCs have a policy of not giving directors notice periods in excess of 1 year. Is the 2 years legal? We don't know who authorised the new contract, when it was authorised and who actually had the power to authorise it so it's difficult to comment. However I seem to recall that PLC directors have to have notice periods in excess of 1 year ratified by an AGM and if that is the case it didn't happen and any pay-off should be adjusted accordingly.

I guess that Frankie, Ian and Johnny were still in the pub.

Good point, Z. Initially I thought it was just a way of Whyte passing on some of his London costs to us but I didn't expect that we'd be poaching an apparent expert. Yes, bizarre.

Agreed. I'm very underwhelmed. It's hardly the time to be doing it when companies worldwide are cutting back on marketing spend. It strikes me of a similar venture to Northern Spirit or the Chinese team. Asia is dominated by the EPL and we are not going to break into it short term with little or no TV coverage. We may do something in Australia and North America but if we didn't have much success while we had a team full of stars, it's hardly likely to work now. However I hope I'm proved wrong.

I'm sure that TBO/UB will have some appropriate banners.

I've just heard from Jim Hannah that he was going to leave on Friday but he has now has been persuaded to come to the game on Saturday to let the fans give him a proper Rangers send off. Let's make it a send off to remember for everything he has done for both Rangers FC and the fans. :spl:

I can certainly condemn him and his views and anyone who thinks it's not a big deal to show support for terrorist groups who murdered many people.

It's a sectarian terrorist group and murdered people based on their religion and nationality.

How many go along and grin and give the thumbs up? How many then post it on their facebook pages? You don't see what the problem is in glorifying the the IRA?