Bluedell 5,343 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 then we should ask why the ipo prospectus was wrong and who gets sacked for that. THere are a few ways that he could have been paid the amount claimed and neither the IPO nor the statement of him leaving were incorrect. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 THere are a few ways that he could have been paid the amount claimed and neither the IPO nor the statement of him leaving were incorrect. oh i don't doubt they have the spivery all buttoned up. we never seem to struggle for cash to make huge pay offs though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 then we should ask why the ipo prospectus was wrong and who gets sacked for that. I think the answer might be that Rangers didn't giver him notice " it was mutually agreed" that he leave and get a year's pay; but then the question would be WHY; since he couldn't get more than his contract stipulated at a Tribunal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Should be very interesting. So far, criticism of Wallace has been pretty mild, I'd fancy some of his answers at today's meeting may change that one way or the other...! My feeling is that he will not say anything different from what he said in the TE interview; just put a different way perhaps depending on the actual questions asked. His basic stance will be I am not even half way through my 120-day review; I'll meet you again after that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,343 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I think the answer might be that Rangers didn't giver him notice " it was mutually agreed" that he leave and get a year's pay; but then the question would be WHY; since he couldn't get more than his contract stipulated at a Tribunal. It's not been confirmed that he got a "year's pay". Also it is possible to get more than your notice period from a tribunal. A wrongful dismissal can lead to much higher payments. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It's not been confirmed that he got a "year's pay". Also it is possible to get more than your notice period from a tribunal. A wrongful dismissal can lead to much higher payments. There was comment alleged to be from a "club insider" but you are right, no actual confirmation and no denial either; which you might have expected in current circumstances. I stand corrected on the Tribunal; but whilst Rangers may not have enough evidence to dismiss him, I can't see that he could make much of a case himself. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,343 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 There was comment alleged to be from a "club insider" but you are right, no actual confirmation and no denial either; which you might have expected in current circumstances. My understanding was that the insider said that he got £200K but that may not have been a year's pay, and could have been 6 month's notice and part of a contractual bonus, for example. It's also possible that his contract was changed post-IPA and he was entitled to a year's salary. I stand corrected on the Tribunal; but whilst Rangers may not have enough evidence to dismiss him, I can't see that he could make much of a case himself. There's different aspects of his position. There's his job in respect of preparing budgets, accounts etc, and it could be that this was done to an adequate level. Perhaps the budgets were correct when they were prepared and then the rest of the directors changed things without his agreement. It may be difficult to show that he was poor enough to dismiss him. THere's also the director aspect of his job and that tends to be more subjective. Also did the club go through the full disciplinary procedure? Was he given a verbal wwarning and two or three written warnings that he was not performing adequately? Was he given an opportunity to address his short-comings? He may well have had a great case to take to a tribunal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Surely we could just have given him 6 months notice and gardening leaved him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Surely we could just have given him 6 months notice and gardening leaved him. There's no point in us being awkward or pedantic about it now GS. We wanted the board to get rid of him ASAP and they've done that. I think most of us would much rather have seen the shareholders get rid of him earlier, maybe even at the AGM, but it's done now and there's more important things to focus on than whether Stockbridge got a hundred grand too much (or whatever) in his pay-off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 I disagree because it's symptomatic and is a continuation of previous mistakes. Wallace has just done what Stockbridge did when Mather wanted to leave and what Mather did when green did. Pay offs to original investors are already more than player wages and this is just more. Indeed pay offs to directors now sit at between 1 and 1.5 million. 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.