the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 In fairness, disclosing contractual details to the public/media etc is completely different to a shareholder viewing the contract documents etc. He used the words no one's business but my own. Stop making excuses for him. He was bullshiting 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Nor so we have an legal right to. No idea why that's relevant. That he was also keen to hide his salary 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I am in 100% agreement with Mr Paterson's actions but I did say at the outset that whether required or not it would be best to make an appointment to view the docs (if for no other reason than avoiding a long unnecessary trip, in the vent of unlawful refusal) and I also suggested that it was unlikely that he would be allowed to copy the same. Whether he would be free to disclose the contents is a very interesting question. Do we know if the docs have now been seen? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 That he was also keen to hide his salary As is his right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 As is his right. And it was Wallace's right to not tell a media conference 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 These laws exist to protect us from people like Wallace. There is a very real danger here that another 300k is about to be ****ed away on a bonus that no one in their right mind can justify. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I am in 100% agreement with Mr Paterson's actions but I did say at the outset that whether required or not it would be best to make an appointment to view the docs (if for no other reason than avoiding a long unnecessary trip, in the vent of unlawful refusal) and I also suggested that it was unlikely that he would be allowed to copy the same. Whether he would be free to disclose the contents is a very interesting question. Do we know if the docs have now been seen? Haven't been seen yet but been promised. I to am keen to know if the content must be kept quiet. I don't think an appointment would have helped much. Police intervention was always going to be needed. Though I to would have made one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Since the contracts were made available in the end do we know what's in them yet? The contracts have not been made available at all yet. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 The terms of the bonus are the more pressing issue to me, mainly that it shouldn't be like Stockbridge's football related one 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 And it was Wallace's right to not tell a media conference sure but not to refuse Mr Paterson. But he lied to that media conference or bullshited it. Or is unaware of the law. I don't really care which none of them are acceptable. Twice in the last week this lot have broken company law. It's frightening. 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.