jhunter 0 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 I would rather those million shares are in McCoists hands rather than Charles Greens or Imran Ahmeds. I'd agree with this. i think the bigger issue is his wage - upon demotion his wage should have been revised down - he was getting 750K a year to compete with celtic not part timers. The fact he's then tried to have it obscured from the fans? well what can you say really 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Why has his shareholding suddenly become such an issue..it has been public knowledge for quite a while. Who is pushing this point - is it the board's PR people as part of a plan to discredit him and make it easier to get rid of him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Very few of us had the foresight to know Green really WAS a snakeoil salesman. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but many, many of our fans thought he was the messiah. It isnt exactly hard to see how he could have hoodwinked McCoist too - he hoodwinked plenty of fans and plenty of media too. McCoist isnt exactly a financial wizard. McCoist was told about Green. John Brown being one of those voices and the only one who went public at the time and since saying he told AMcC, amongst others. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Why has his shareholding suddenly become such an issue..it has been public knowledge for quite a while. Who is pushing this point - is it the board's PR people as part of a plan to discredit him and make it easier to get rid of him. Maybe, maybe not - but the question of whether, as seems to be the case form these documents and in the case of knowing his salary just common sense, he deliberately engineered a situation to obscure his earnings from the fans and then lie about it when he could not, seems worthy of an answer either way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmu 0 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Seriously calgacus! the boards pr people blah blah this is just a thread on a forum and if you look at the folks "pushing" the share's point they are hardly in the thrall of the board, forlansister etc etc.. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 You are forgetting the small matter that Greenco were finished without McCoist selling STs - which he knew and had already refused to do, very publicly. It is not akin any normal share issues / employee options. By your reckoning, McCoist should have held out, he could have got 3 or 4 times the price he did for his integrity. Pre-IPO shares arent bartered, not from my experience. The company grants options to the employees at a stated price, there isnt any barter - though admittedly my experience isnt at the senior management levels - most companies would have a committee or formulaic process to determine how many options are granted to each individual (yes, I know that is unlikely with Green's group). But there wouldnt normally be a bargaining process for them. In fact, the suggestion that McCoist should have held out for 3 or 4 times more would suggest that, by not doing so, he wasnt thinking solely about money.... wouldnt it ? What relevance does it hold that Greenco were finished without McCoist giving his seal of approval ? How do you know, for fact, that in the period between McCoist refusing to endorse Greenco and him ultimately doing so there wasnt some kind of "sales pitch" from Green that convinced McCoist that Green was the right man ??? I find it mildly amusing that we are all using the benefit of hindsight to sully McCoist - when many (no, not all) of our fanbase were also hoodwinked by Green and, if reports can be believed, a shyster such as Craig Whyte was also conned by him too. For the avoidance of doubt, I am by no means suggesting that McCoist didnt act in his own best financial interests - but I dont think it is necessarily as clear cut as you all are making out. I am merely playing devils advocate. McCoist initially refused to endorse his new employers - at that point his own employment and salary were on the line. Why has nobody brought that into the equation. by initially refusing to endorse them he was putting his own job in danger - yet that is exactly what he did.... but a few short weeks later he was "selling his soul" to Charles Green for 30 pieces of silver..... funny how those two actions appear to be bipolar in nature. Yet only the one is being picked apart. I also find it interesting that McCoist now wholly refuses to be drawn into those discussions about the club's owners and financial aspects of the club. Some will say because he got his financial rewards - others will say "once bitten, twice shy". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Then he should have had the sense not to endorse green. I have no issue with him taking the shares. But with taking them then endorsing **** Co. He has to know how that looks. Again, there were thousands upon thousands of bears who believed in Green. It shows the type of support we have when we dont make our own minds up on someone but rather blindly walk behind McCoist (or anyone else) just because he says so. Since when did McCoist become some kind of financial guru that we should listen to ? Charles Green hoodwinked a great deal of bears. Just because McCoist was on the inside doesnt mean that he couldnt be hoodwinked too. And he could also have fallen for Green's moonbeams - something Green was very adept at. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Maybe, maybe not - but the question of whether, as seems to be the case form these documents and in the case of knowing his salary just common sense, he deliberately engineered a situation to obscure his earnings from the fans and then lie about it when he could not, seems worthy of an answer either way. He is an employee - his salary is a private matter between him and the Club. If the board want rid of him, they should take the bull by the horns and dismiss him and his coaching team. Though I'm not sure I would trust them to get a suitable replacement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 McCoist was told about Green. John Brown being one of those voices and the only one who went public at the time and since saying he told AMcC, amongst others. McCoist was told what? John Brown talked crap and was busy going on about the title deeds when his agent was telling him he had inspected them. I don't remember anyone coming up with proof about Green at that point. It was all rumour or speculation, while Green was making plans to bring in £20m+ into the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Seriously calgacus! the boards pr people blah blah this is just a thread on a forum and if you look at the folks "pushing" the share's point they are hardly in the thrall of the board, forlansister etc etc.. I'm interested why it has come to the surface now when it has been known about for quite a while. For the record, I always doubted he would make a good manager. 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.