Martin Bain suspended

[Kenzie1 0]

I don't know him personally if that's what you mean, but he loves the club and he's been an employee of the club for a long time. Martin Bain had good job at Ibrox when a lot of the guys on forums calling him every name under the sun were still in nappies. I've cursed him myself in the past and often questioned if he was the right man for the job, but credit where credit is due; he's worked his way up over many years at Rangers by doing a good job and earning promotions. Working for Rangers has made him a wealthy man and I fail to see why he would steal from the club even when faced with the prospect of his time with Rangers nearing an end. Stealing from the club would be like stealing from the fans; it's unthinkable.

 

I believe Bain only came to the club in 1996 - but I stand to be corrected as I'm not sure of his exact date of arrival. Who but Murray judged that he was doing a good job? Remember all the directors owed their patronage to Murray and they were unlikely to disagree with him. So as to whether he "earned promotions" is a matter for conjecture. As for "stealing", I'm sorry if I did not make my original point clear but, if he acted in a manner that was likely to give him any fiscal advantage, then he is failing as a director, in his fiduciary duty to shareholders. Or, to put it simply, he was taking money to which he had no legal entitlement. Call that what you will.

[Bluedell 5,329]

(1) I'm sure you'll understand, but that information is confidential.

 

Doesn't make it accurate though.

 

(2) Any change to any contractual obligation would have to be approved by the majority shareholder as the company was at that time, in a state of flux.

 

The company was not in a "state of flux". The board of directors was intact and fully functioning. The question still stands as it's the directors who have the power to authorise and sign contracts and not a shareholder.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Bluedell

[Bluedell 5,329]

Or, to put it simply, he was taking money to which he had no legal entitlement.

 

So you are stating that Bain was defrauding the company. An extreme allegation, which, if true, has to result in a criminal investigation to recover the stolen funds. I await with bated breath.

[Zappa 0]

I believe Bain only came to the club in 1996 - but I stand to be corrected as I'm not sure of his exact date of arrival.

 

Yes, he came to the club in '96, 15 years ago and still a young lad at the time according to what he said in an interview for the beeb's Walter tribute program. His first job with the club was as Commercial Manager.

 

Who but Murray judged that he was doing a good job? Remember all the directors owed their patronage to Murray and they were unlikely to disagree with him. So as to whether he "earned promotions" is a matter for conjecture.

 

Of course it's a matter for conjecture, but David Murray didn't make him Vice Chairman of the Marketing and Communication Group of the European Club Association.

 

As for "stealing", I'm sorry if I did not make my original point clear but, if he acted in a manner that was likely to give him any fiscal advantage, then he is failing as a director, in his fiduciary duty to shareholders. Or, to put it simply, he was taking money to which he had no legal entitlement. Call that what you will.

 

You made your point perfectly clear. You're suggesting that Martin Bain might have been essentially stealing, something which I can't believe he would do. We'll have to wait and see, but for such suggestions to be getting spread around without specific evidence is just completely wrong IMO. If these accusations are merely rumours and are ultimately untrue they could seriously damage the guy's career. They may have already done that whilst being nothing more than dirty underhand tactics.

[chilledbear 16]

I would like Whyte to have waited till Bain was back from America. It just doesn't sit right not to wait a couple of days, do it face to face.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Aren't all Directors contracts supposed to be available for shareholders to inspect at the company's registered office?

[Bluedell 5,329]

Aren't all Directors contracts supposed to be available for shareholders to inspect at the company's registered office?

 

No. Don't think so.

[forlanssister 3,050]

No. Don't think so.

 

I'm not one for studying the various annual reports and accounts that plop through my letterbox, but in moments of intense boredom I do occasionally peruse them and one of the useless bits of trivia that sticks in my mind is that I have the right to inspect the Directors' service contract.

 

Accordingly my understanding of the relevant law (though I happily concede that I could well be wrong) is that any shareholder can nip along to Ibrox which is the registered address and ask to see any or all the Directors contracts.

 

318. Directors� service contracts to be open to inspection.

(1) Subject to the following provisions, every company shall keep at an appropriate place:

(a) in the case of each director whose contract of service with the company is in writing, a copy of that contract;

(b) in the case of each director whose contract of service with the company is not in writing, a written memorandum setting out its terms; and

© in the case of each director who is employed under a contract of service with a subsidiary of the company, a copy of that contract or, if it is not in writing, a written memorandum setting out its terms.

(2) All copies and memoranda kept by a company in pursuance of subsection (1) shall be kept at the same place.

(3) The following are appropriate places for the purposes of subsection (1):

(a) the company�s registered office;

(b) the place where its register of members is kept (if other than its registered office);

© its principal place of business, provided that is situated in that part of Great Britain in which the company is registered.

(4) Every company shall send notice in the prescribed form to the registrar of companies of the place where copies and memoranda are kept in compliance with subsection (1), and of any change in that place, save in a case in which they have at all times been kept at the company�s registered office.

(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a director�s contract of service with the company or with a subsidiary of it if that contract required him to work wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom; but the company shall keep a memorandum:

(a) in the case of a contract of service with the company, giving the director�s name and setting out the provisions of the contract relating to its duration;

(b) in the case of a contract of service with a subsidiary, giving the director�s name and the name and place of incorporation of the subsidiary, and setting out the provisions of the contract relating to its duration,

at the same place as copies and memoranda are kept by the company in pursuance of subsection (1).

 

(6) A shadow director is treated for purposes of this section as a director.

(7) Every copy and memorandum required by subsection (1) or (5) to be kept shall be open to inspection of any member of the company without charge.

(8) If:

(a) default is made in complying with subsection (1) or (5), or

(b) an inspection required under subsection (7) is refused, or

© default is made for 14 days in complying with subsection (4),

the company and every officer of it who is in default is liable to a fine and, for continued contravention, to a daily default fine.

 

(9) In the case of a refusal of an inspection required under subsection (7) of a copy or memorandum, the court may by order compel an immediate inspection of it.

(10) Subsections (1) and (5) apply to a variation of a director�s contract of service as they apply to the contract.

(11) This section does not require that there be kept a copy of, or memorandum setting out the terms of, a contract (or its variation) at a time when the unexpired portion of the term for which the contract is to be in force is less than 12 months, or at a time at which the contract can, within the next ensuing 12 months, be terminated by the company without payment of compensation.

[der Berliner 3,245]

I would like Whyte to have waited till Bain was back from America. It just doesn't sit right not to wait a couple of days, do it face to face.

 

Well, I would assume that is what he did when he "only" suspended them for the time being. The "financial stuff" is only a rumour uttered by "a press source at Ibrox", so who's to say that ain't all garbage. In any case, as I have said elsewhere, this isn't the way we should be dealing with such topics. Take these people aside, tell them that their time is up and why (if that is the case), and ask them for the sake of the club to keep a lid on things.

[Kenzie1 0]

Yes, he came to the club in '96, 15 years ago and still a young lad at the time according to what he said in an interview for the beeb's Walter tribute program. His first job with the club was as Commercial Manager.

 

 

 

Of course it's a matter for conjecture, but David Murray didn't make him Vice Chairman of the Marketing and Communication Group of the European Club Association.

 

 

 

You made your point perfectly clear. You're suggesting that Martin Bain might have been essentially stealing, something which I can't believe he would do. We'll have to wait and see, but for such suggestions to be getting spread around without specific evidence is just completely wrong IMO. If these accusations are merely rumours and are ultimately untrue they could seriously damage the guy's career. They may have already done that whilst being nothing more than dirty underhand tactics.

 

This has grown arms and legs. I was given confidential information which, as someone has correctly pointed out, doesn't make it correct. It also doesn't make it wrong either. As to Bain, it will all come out in the wash. I was expressing an opinion, not making an accusation, as some are trying to imply. I said; "IF he acted in a manner ...etc, etc. Not, HE DID act in a manner..... etc, etc. As I've said, I was expressing an opinion. Nothing else. One other thing; the board of directors was not intact and fully functioning, as has been suggested. However; be that as it may, argue among yourselves. I've said all I'm going to say on this. But I will say this in closing, if I have upset anyone by my postings, I apologise profusely, that was not my intent. Like all Rangers' supporters, I want only what is best for Rangers.