Record Back Page

[Frankie 8,182]

For clarity the request at Ibrox was to view the Directors Service Contracts of Graham Wallace, David Somers, Norman Crighton, James Easdale, Charles Green, Craig Mather and Brian Stockbridge.

 

Subsequently a request was made in writing for a copy of the contracts of the Directors above and also those of Sandy Easdale and Imran Ahmad.

 

A few folk on Twitter saying the latter two's details need not to be provided as they are/were not directors of the PLC.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

A few folk on Twitter saying the latter two's details need not to be provided as they are/were not directors of the PLC.

 

Did I not read that both the Messrs Easdale emerged from Ibrox together after the Board meeting last Thursday night.

 

Of course this may mean nothing at all and certainly is not evidence that Mr Alexander Easdale was at the plc Board's meeting; but could it be that Mr Alexander Easdale was "invited" to attend the plc Board's meeting and if so is this a regular occurrence; and if that is so at what point does "invited" end and de facto begin?

Edited April 30, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[forlanssister 3,050]

For those doubting the validity of the request to view Sandy Easdale and Imran Ahmads Directors Service Contracts:

 

228 Copy of contract or memorandum of terms to be available for inspection

 

(1) A company must keep available for inspection—

 

(a) a copy of every director’s service contract with the company or with a

subsidiary of the company, or

 

(b) if the contract is not in writing, a written memorandum setting out the

terms of the contract.

 

Scroll down to Chapter 5

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/pdfs/ukpga_20060046_en.pdf

[the gunslinger 3,366]

we should have done this months ago.

[The Real PapaBear 0]

If I remember right he was asked at times and never said.

 

It's not deflection, just that the same standards don't always seem to apply to all major club employees. And it was more to make the point that the details of Wallace's etc contracts will be revealed in the accounts regardless it's not something that can be kept secret for any length of time.

 

three things:

 

First,..."if" you "remember right"?

You'll forgive me if I don't place a lot of trust in your memory.

I don't suppose there'es any chance of any proof of this claim?

 

Second:

the term "major club employees" is something I have never come across before; the reason being there is no such thing; it doesn't exist.

The reason that you have brought it into existance is to bolster your myopic and vindictive campaign against McCoist by insinuating some sort of equivalence between him and those responsible for club finances.

There is no parallel to be drawn between those who hand out the money and those who are given the money.

There is no equivalence between employer and employee.

 

Third

How does making a baseless, and probably libelous, claim that McCoist, (who is an employee with no say in remuneration), tried to hide his salary "make the point" that Wallace's contract will be revealed in the accounts?

[simplythebest 0]

three things:

 

First,..."if" you "remember right"?

You'll forgive me if I don't place a lot of trust in your memory.

I don't suppose there'es any chance of any proof of this claim?

 

Second:

the term "major club employees" is something I have never come across before; the reason being there is no such thing; it doesn't exist.

The reason that you have brought it into existance is to bolster your myopic and vindictive campaign against McCoist by insinuating some sort of equivalence between him and those responsible for club finances.

There is no parallel to be drawn between those who hand out the money and those who are given the money.

There is no equivalence between employer and employee.

 

Third

How does making a baseless, and probably libelous, claim that McCoist, (who is an employee with no say in remuneration), tried to hide his salary "make the point" that Wallace's contract will be revealed in the accounts?

I'll search for it later, with the media in this country it would have been amazing if he wasn't asked though.

 

In football the manager is known as the most important man at the club, to make him sound like a regular employee is disingenuous. And while McCoist may not be in charge of the boardroom he's been happy to give his blessing to a line of CEOs, chairmen etc and agreed deals for penny shares. Just yesterday he's trying to absolve himself of all responsibility despite demanding a string of signings to play against the worst teams you'll find anywhere in football.

 

Point being we didn't know about the manager's excessive salary until the accounts came out, and the same will/would be the case for Wallace although it looks like we'll find out early.

 

Out of interest were you as concerned about libel when it came to online comments about Sandy Easdale?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

I'll search for it later, with the media in this country it would have been amazing if he wasn't asked though.

 

In football the manager is known as the most important man at the club, to make him sound like a regular employee is disingenuous. And while McCoist may not be in charge of the boardroom he's been happy to give his blessing to a line of CEOs, chairmen etc and agreed deals for penny shares. Just yesterday he's trying to absolve himself of all responsibility despite demanding a string of signings to play against the worst teams you'll find anywhere in football.

 

Point being we didn't know about the manager's excessive salary until the accounts came out, and the same will/would be the case for Wallace although it looks like we'll find out early.

 

Out of interest were you as concerned about libel when it came to online comments about Sandy Easdale?

 

Four things:

 

First, I would have thought you'd have done your research before making accusations. But perhaps, since it's Ally, the normal rules don't apply, eh - and your accusation is based on what might have possibly happened maybe, rather than what actually did.

Still, I look forward to your search. Any idea when you'll get back to me on the results?

 

Second, by whom exactly is the manager "known as the most important man at the club". Managers can be and are sacked at the whim of the owner on a weekly basis in professional football. By what stretch of teh imagination is teh person being sacked more important than the person doing the sacking?

 

Third, what does McCoist's "blessings" or otherwise have to do with the fact that this board broke the law this week? Once again, you are ignoring the mismanagement in the boardroom and deflecting the conversation away from those culpable for it and onto someone who has nothing to do with it.

 

Fourth, you're once again avoiding the issue about the board taking an immoral and undeserved bonus by diverting the topic onto McCoist's salary. Two entirely different things.

 

I wasn't in the least concerned about any comments made about Easedale - but then Easedale didn't help save us in our hour of need after providing over a decade of fanatstic service to us.

[simplythebest 0]

Four things:

 

First, I would have thought you'd have done your research before making accusations. But perhaps, since it's Ally, the normal rules don't apply, eh - and your accusation is based on what might have possibly happened maybe, rather than what actually did.

Still, I look forward to your search. Any idea when you'll get back to me on the results?

 

Second, by whom exactly is the manager "known as the most important man at the club". Managers can be and are sacked at the whim of the owner on a weekly basis in professional football. By what stretch of teh imagination is teh person being sacked more important than the person doing the sacking?

 

Third, what does McCoist's "blessings" or otherwise have to do with the fact that this board broke the law this week? Once again, you are ignoring the mismanagement in the boardroom and deflecting the conversation away from those culpable for it and onto someone who has nothing to do with it.

 

Fourth, you're once again avoiding the issue about the board taking an immoral and undeserved bonus by diverting the topic onto McCoist's salary. Two entirely different things.

 

I wasn't in the least concerned about any comments made about Easedale - but then Easedale didn't help save us in our hour of need after providing over a decade of fanatstic service to us.

 

Care to tell me how McCoist 'saved' us? Considering I get lambasted for saying the guy the led the consortium to buy us out saved us.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

green bought us then ruined us.

 

he may have been the one who won the dirty war to save us as well.

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

green bought us then ruined us.

 

he may have been the one who won the dirty war to save us as well.

 

what war? he was only one who had a properly-funded bid.(unless you consider McColls 11th hour attempt to be a bid)