Leggat - BOYD BONUS BOMBSHELL AS MATHER AND STOCKBRIDGE SNUB FANS

[ian1964 10,411]

I'm not against bonuses in general when it is agreed and deserved,however the state the club is in financially there should be nobody getting bonuses!,maybe in a couple of years when we are running a profit and are on stable ground financially, even so bonuses for players not for board members etc:

[Zappa 0]

I reckon there's been too much focus on the £200k Stockbridge bonus and nowhere near enough focus on the £600k bonus Green walked away with for almost killing the club of embarrassment.

[pete 2,499]

I reckon there's been too much focus on the £200k Stockbridge bonus and nowhere near enough focus on the £600k bonus Green walked away with for almost killing the club of embarrassment.

 

I agree with that but it was off topic.

[Gribz 743]

I reckon there's been too much focus on the £200k Stockbridge bonus and nowhere near enough focus on the £600k bonus Green walked away with for almost killing the club of embarrassment.

 

I disagree, I don't even know who Stockbridge is, never mind allowing him a 200k bonus for footballing reasons while being a dark suit in the background.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

The club's finance director and other board members would deserve a bonus if the financial results were of a good enough standard and not a substantial loss.

 

Players who got out and win games and trophies for Rangers Football Club full deserve their bonus money.

 

I completely agree, I may have come across wrong in my comment apologies, I was meaning what did the Directors do to get their bonuses? I can kind of see why Green got his, even though it was an obscene amount, but what did Stockbridge do to get his? A criteria usually has to be met to earn it, or he has to do something.

[Bluedell 5,329]

The issue of a Finance Director getting a bonus at a football club can be a tricky one. I don't have an issue with him getting one if the club meet their targets during the year. However getting a 100% bonus os obviously totally over the top.

 

I'm not necessarily in favour of him getting a bonus based on financial results. For example, perhaps the club needs to sell Wallace to get the cash for Stickbridhe to meet his financial target. He may therefore have an incentive to weaken the team rather than strengthen it.

 

Perhaps a complicated bonus structure based on cost control could be put in place as an alternative.

 

The bottom line is that Stockbridge's bonus was far too high in percentage terms. A bonus of, say 10%, for us winning the league, and perhaps a one-off bonus of 20% for a suvccessful share issue may have been in order.

 

Zappa, there has been less focus on Green's bonus as he has now done a runner. We should now be concentrating more on the directorswho are still on the board who approved it.

[calscot 0]

Sorry I am just against the bonus system. I believe people are paid to do a job and are paid to do their job as good as possible. I can't understand why someone who is paid millions to do their job also needs a bonus. I can understand that a part time team like Brechin reaching the CL would give their team a bonus but Rangers players are paid to be successful.

 

Bonuses can be looked on in two ways. Firstly it means you pay more when you do well but the flip side is you pay less when you do worse. If you don't have bonuses, what does the wage offer become? You might have to offer the higher amount no matter how well the employee performs.

 

But I think we all know that football is a motivational game and we are all wary of paying someone the same dosh whether they win, lose or draw.

[andy steel 0]

Bonuses can be looked on in two ways. Firstly it means you pay more when you do well but the flip side is you pay less when you do worse. If you don't have bonuses, what does the wage offer become? You might have to offer the higher amount no matter how well the employee performs.

 

But I think we all know that football is a motivational game and we are all wary of paying someone the same dosh whether they win, lose or draw.

 

It's hardly paying less, though, is it? You have a salary which you can make higher if you are successful. If not, well, you never had it in the first place.

[calscot 0]

It's hardly paying less, though, is it? You have a salary which you can make higher if you are successful. If not, well, you never had it in the first place.

 

I think when Rangers are offering a contract, the win bonuses will be coming fast and free and so a player will take that into account when comparing with some offer from a bottom half English Championship or Scots Premiership club. Take the bonuses away and the basic wage doesn't look so good and so you have to increase them to the level of what the player would expect to previously earn - but then you don't pay them less when they don't meet expectations...