craig 5,195 Posted September 29, 2013 Share Posted September 29, 2013 and did they honour these assurances ? motherwell supporters didn't. They finished last season on the supporters trust's overdraft.others just give away thousands of free tickets to massage their attendances. Doesn't matter, the directors of those clubs will hide behind the "our supporters promised to buy more tickets than the lost revenue from Rangers so we acted in the best interests of the club" - very very easy excuse to hide behind !! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Doesn't matter, the directors of those clubs will hide behind the "our supporters promised to buy more tickets than the lost revenue from Rangers so we acted in the best interests of the club" - very very easy excuse to hide behind !! not sure their bank managers would be quite as easily fooled.............. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 McCoist may well not need the money, but how much of a pay cut are the board taking? I'm betting south of zero percent. The digs about how much Ally earns anyway are all very well, but the board will appreciate you doing that, instead of looking at their earnings. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Does anyone know if McCoist and his staff got a bonus for winning DIV 3 last season? Same with the players, if they did they shouldn't have. The only thing they could possibly have got a bonus for was the Motherwell game in my opinion 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Last season was bad enough without demotivating the players even more, thanks. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 not sure their bank managers would be quite as easily fooled.............. Rab, can you explain what that has to do with the initial question of whether the Boards of these clubs were breaking the Director's duties ? For every response I give you, you come up with something else which is further from the original question than the last response. The bank managers cant determine if they have broken Companies House legislation. Thye can deny them loans and credit lines etc (as is the bank's prerogative) but banks cannot determine if Co's House rules have been broken. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 Rab, can you explain what that has to do with the initial question of whether the Boards of these clubs were breaking the Director's duties ? For every response I give you, you come up with something else which is further from the original question than the last response. The bank managers cant determine if they have broken Companies House legislation. Thye can deny them loans and credit lines etc (as is the bank's prerogative) but banks cannot determine if Co's House rules have been broken. without us in the top flight the game is doomed. That's all I'm saying. They took a decision to throw Rangers out of the SPL and it will have a detrimental effect at some point. The SPFL has no sponsor. The LC has no sponsor. It looks like Liewell & Doncaster signed a SKY deal for years in advance(so they didnt quit) at no increase in revenue over those years. Are you suggesting these directors believe that their supporters will make up the shortfall over these next few years? sorry craig just can't see it 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted September 30, 2013 Share Posted September 30, 2013 without us in the top flight the game is doomed. That's all I'm saying. They took a decision to throw Rangers out of the SPL and it will have a detrimental effect at some point. The SPFL has no sponsor. The LC has no sponsor. It looks like Liewell & Doncaster signed a SKY deal for years in advance(so they didnt quit) at no increase in revenue over those years.Are you suggesting these directors believe that their supporters will make up the shortfall over these next few years? sorry craig just can't see it I dont disagree with any of that Rab. I just felt I was going round in circles with you in terms of the obligation under the Companies Act. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.