Bluedell

A smart arse answer shouldn't result in being thrown out the ground.

Looks great.

So the BBC has the deal with the SPL and therefore they would be taking the SPL to court and not Rangers. As far as I'm aware, Rangers will not prevent the BBC from reporting on games.

He was only appointed as Secretary, AFAIK.

Whyte and Betts aren't the ones in question. They definitely are directors. It is Russell and Smith that appear not to be, despite what the club's website says.

When shareholders holding over 90% of the shares are advising the directors on the direction that they wish the company to go, what decisions should the directors not have taken? I'm unclear as to where they should have said no to decisions that the majority shareholder(s) wanted. I agree with the concept that you are saying, Craig, but I just don't see how it strictly applies in this case. I don't see that any of the decisions made were clearly to the detriment of the individual shareholders, particularly as it is unclear as to their objectives. You and I may not have agreed where the line between on-field success and financial stability was drawn but our views may differ from other minority shareholders. Agreed. Again, I'm unclear as to what you expect the other directors to have done differently.

You are quite right. The club's website says they are on the Board of Directors and has done for several months but their appointment has not been registered within the required 14 days, so either the website is wrong and the club are misleading the fans as to who the directors of the club are, or the club are not informing Companies House of appointments and failing in their legal duty. Given that resignations are being promply notified then I have to presume that the club are misleading the support.

the directors of the club had responsibilities towards the shareholders, and principally the majority shareholder. Murray holds the main responsibility and everyone else are just bit players. In no way are they all equally liable.

Yes, the 5. I presume King is not being allowed any part in the corporate governance either and Phil Betts is a non-exec.

They may have been given their say in corporate decisions but the final say was Murray's, as we all know. However at least they felt that they could advise/object/have their say. It appears that Whyte is not even doing that, although he probably has his own advisers. It's a little concerning that there's nobody left to highlight how mistakes were made in the past. Gordon Smith appears to be on hand to give footballing advice but it seems he's been kept in the dark about much that's going on as well. I have a distinct feeling of unease.

Whyte must have seen the contracts of the directors as part of due diligence. He would know the costs of getting rid of them and would have factored that into the price he offered for the shares. It would have been better for all if he had just dealt with it quickly when he took over the company.

It shows your lack of understanding of the situation. Let's stick to the case in hand. He doesn't have more rights than anyone else, and some are claiming that he should not even exercise these rights. "Immoral"? I think that you're making my argument for me. You're now having a go at me? Playing the man rather than the ball shows the weakness in your argument.

As Craig says, it was before he started. Yes, he would expect to not stay in his position and would expect to get paid off in terms of his contract. The only issue may be is who approved the contract, if he got an enhanced one in line with Bain.

There's plenty of stuff that goes on in my company that I don't agree with. All I can do is give my opinion but ultimately the owners of the company get the final say. Should I resign over it? Am I the one at fault becuse I was over-ruled/outvoted? Do I deserve not to receive any redundancy if the company starts to struggle?

Apparently there's plenty who do know.

He was carrying out his responsibiilities as a director. He should be credited for performing his duties although that led to the risk of him losing his job. The easy option would be to have sat and done nothing and not told everyone of his concerns but that would not have been carrying out his duties properly. I fail to see why the salary a person gets should affect their employment rights. It seems that there's a lot of jealousy and hypocrisy in this thread.

Yeah, he had only played a handful of games in goals before we signed him.

That's a fair point. But you can't have it both ways. He's a guy doing his job and is therefore due his redundancy (or whatever) payoff in the same way as you and I would expect it. I failt to see why he is a "money grabbing chunt".

I'm surprised it took so long.

I don't see anyone getting worked up and distraught. I just think that you are putting CoS into a pigeon hole because it fits the way that you look at things. There is a LOT to criticise them for but the reasons for their inactivity do not include them being worried that they are "hanging by a thread knowing that religion is essentially dead."

Sorry but I think that your comments show that you have no understanding of the CoS

My only encounter with the ICF was in Turin when they were fighting our own support.

Why was this referred for review? We all know why the Naismith one was, but if you get caught diving it is only a yellow card offence. Why review a yellow card offence? Why then would it be potentially a 2 match ban? Also why did they refer an incident that the ref saw and made a judgement on? All very strange.

Yes, and not just the BBC. Celtic, the RC church, SNP, Labour, Radio Clyde, Daily Record.........

Keep well, Gazza!