Requisitioner says Ally McCoist deserves full pay-off at Rangers

[forlanssister 3,050]

At Rangers like in almost every other walk of life nowadays failure seems to reap it's own rewards.

[compo 6,074]

Time to tighten up on the contracts

[The Real PapaBear 0]

10-man defence and then beating them on penalties.

 

as long as Mohsni is sent off early inthe game, it might just work

[SteveC 150]

Time to tighten up on the contracts

 

Way, way past time

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

That's actually a fair point which I had forgotten due to the abysmal quality of play - winning two leagues was the target, & he did it. I doubt if there's any clause in the contract which stipulates 'must be done with flair'. I wish there had been, though, and over the piece - from a fans view - I would certainly class Ally the manager as a failure. But from a contract pov, I suppose he'd solid.

The team would have won both those leagues without a manager.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Ser Barristan Selmy

[SteveC 150]

The team would have won both those leagues without a manager.

 

Sad to say, they kind of did.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I have always been at a loss to understand the benefit of a 12-month rolling contract from a football club's point of view.

 

In other walks of life, normally you would be on an open ended contract subject to a fixed period of notice on either side, very often a week or even up to a month for every year of employment with a limit of say 1-3 months, sometimes longer for senior staff or directors. This would almost always apply except in cases of instant dismissal for gross misconduct.

 

In practice at big companies the HR Department would most likely advise paying for a full notice period even where the circumstances of leaving/dismissal are in dispute, because then there is little or no point in the former employee going to a Tribunal because they have suffered no loss (except perhaps ongoing or future employment, which is difficult to argue and even more difficult to prove).

 

So if Ally had been on this kind of "normal" contract then he would have given say 3 months notice and it would be up to the Club whether to allow him to work that notice, put him on gardening leave (which would mean paying two people to do the same job, and possibly ditto the coaching staff), or pay him in lieu and say leave now (which in reality again means paying two people to do the same job). Six months might have been ideal, of course, to the end of the season; unless he/the directors thought that with him in charge promotion was unlikely.

 

Perhaps more commonly in football terms and sometimes in other spheres of employment, he might have been on a fixed term contract (to do a specific job); the obvious term in his case being 3 years to see if he got us up to the SPL and then reassess. In that case, if he had opted to leave early, I don't see that he would have been entitled to anything; but if the Club asked him to leave before the end of the contract obviously they would need to pay it up.

 

However, with a rolling 12 month contract, Ally would almost always be entitled to a year's pay, pretty much regardless of the circumstances of his leaving and it seems a reversion to full salary AND most likely the difference in back pay as well. So it is difficult if not impossible to understand the purpose of such a contract from the Club's point of view, given that managerial dismissals are almost always instantaneous; but equally it is a nice cushion to have from Ally's perspective and one cannot blame him for accepting if that is what was on offer.

 

So the situation here is more or less the same as for an open ended contract except that the notice period is 12 months. So, as has been widely reported it is up to the Club whether to allow him to work that notice, put him on gardening leave or pay him in lieu and say off you go with a pocket full of money. The money would appear to be around £1.1-1.2M (a year’s salary + a year’s deferral) and perhaps compensation for other bonuses and add-ons. Around £700-800k of that will not have been included in the £8M required to fund operations till the end of the season. If one includes Messrs McDowall and Durrant (but see below) assuming they are on the same kind of deal, then that figure might easily rise well above £1M but let’s just say £1M for the sake of argument.

 

Rangers don’t have the money, so what are the options?

 

Mike Ashley opens the petty cash and says there you go? Possible, if he takes the view that immediate change is vital to secure his long term objective; but then he didn’t take the initiative, so that seems unlikely.

 

Also given the small bit of bother with the SFA, would Ashley want to pay off the Manager of a Club where he may find his control restricted or expensive or both, perhaps even to the extent that he calls it quits? Again, that’s unlikely in my view.

 

Rangers add a million to the impending share issue on the basis that paying off the coaching crew is just another debt or cost of operation. That certainly wouldn’t make the issue any more attractive and becomes more difficult as the current price continues to fall – 18p today. Also if Ashley underwrites the issue, notwithstanding the SFA, then effectively he might be forced to pay up anyway; again unlikely that is in his mindset.

 

For all the same reasons, a year’s gardening leave is unsustainable; unless it is on a vastly reduced salary and if you were Ally would you do agree to that? Some might argue he might for the good of the Club and it’s certainly possible; but given the clever way he has engineered this situation, I very much doubt it. It would not surprise me in the least if he felt that he was entitled to every last penny on the basis that the actions of the Club have made his position untenable rather than the team’s performances making his position untenable. He can still argue rightly that Rangers are well-placed for a play-off berth and no reason why they still shouldn’t go up.

 

That said it’s clear he wants to leave asap. I think there are two aspects to this. The first is that he genuinely cannot abide what is happening inside the Club, with ordinary staff being made redundant at no great saving within the overall scheme of things, and now Murray Park staff under threat as well. The second is that the even his most loyal of supporters amongst the fans are turning against him because of the abysmal performances on the field. Ally McCoist is rightly a legend at Ibrox, he doesn’t want that overshadowed by failure if we don’t go up. Nor would he ever want to see or hear a real demonstration against him by the fans. In my opinion a few more humiliations like Alloa and QoS and that might be on the cards; that is if there are enough fans left to demonstrate.

 

So, all this leads me to the conclusion that compromise is on the cards. The ball is in the Club’s court. As things stand they have a lame duck manager and a year’s money and more to pay him and his staff. I doubt 3-moths pay would suffice but if I was them I would offer something like 6-months to 30 June 2015 at the existing reduced salary ex the back pay and be prepared to go to 6-months full pay + some or all of the back pay; with the proviso that he could leave when either promotion was assured or beyond our reach. On the other hand, one strong factor on Ally's side of the table is that he does indeed know all the "beans" and a very tight non-disclosure clause might be expensive from the Club's point of view.

 

If he would leave now for say £200-250k then that might be an affordable option.

 

I cannot see that either party will want (and Rangers can’t afford) an extended period of gardening leave; nor will either side want the situation to persist into next season. I think I am correct in saying that there are a dozen or so players out of contract in the summer and there is no way the Club will want Ally to be making the decisions on who gets offered new contracts and who doesn’t, far less who is brought in to replace those who whose contract s will not be renewed.

 

A small issue in relation to the immediate future is the position of the 8 players currently out on loan. However, Ally and his staff are probably better placed to consider their futures than any new manager might be unless he had a strong background in Scottish football or relied on the opinions of others.

 

I mentioned that Ian Durrant might be a special case. There are few if any (perhaps including Ian himself) who understand what his current role entails. It has always seemed to me that he has been employed in a sinecure on the basis of the horrendous injury that befell him in our cause. I don’t have any problem with that but not at a reputed £100-200k.

 

Ally will go back into TV. Kenny McDowall will get another job in football, albeit this spell will not have enhanced his reputation, he can argue that he didn’t have the highest quality tools in his box. I would offer Durrant a job at say £25-30k, the exact job specification doesn’t really matter, so long as it is clear that he will be taken care off. He won’t get a job elsewhere and we should look after our own. Again I wouldn’t fault him for taking whatever contract he was offered but equally I don’t think he has had any real influence on where we are now in football terms. That said Durrant accepted an out of court settlelement in 1993 http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-durrant-settles-out-of-court-1470817.html and it might well be argued that Rangers have long ago generously fulfilled any commitment that they might have had towards him.

Edited December 16, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Darn good post BH. Looks as though Ally's the winner here and hopefully his anger will turn to kind benefactor for those he's' protesting' on behalf. And of course spilling the beans!

 

Only disagreement is Durrant....he's a millionaire and shouldn't be entitled to a wage doing very little based on his horrific injury nearly 30 years ago.

 

Coming from you I'll take that as a great compliment SB.

 

One strong factor on Ally's side of the table is that he does indeed know all the "beans" and a very tight non-disclosure clause might be expensive from the Club's point of view.

 

I was tempted to add in a comment to the effect that Durrant did get compensation and it's arguable that Rangers have long ago fulfilled any obligation they might have had towards him.

 

I'll edit both parts now.

 

Thanks.

Edited December 16, 2014 by BrahimHemdani

[RANGERRAB 3,252]

There must be no room for sentiment here. McCoist must leave tomorrow whatever it takes. As for McDowall and Durrant it will be for the new manager to decide whether they stay or go after he is appointed. Both may likely remain though until such an appointment is made. Maybe a new manager may wish to retain McDowall even if temporarily especially if he's from outside Scottish football but Durrant adds nothing of value for me.Unlikely he'll be kept on.

Change in the football management in Rangers is long overdue and nothing must impede that change.It is also imperative we get the best available candidate given our current situation so I'd maybe suggest advertising the vacancy and invite applicants. No more giving the job to someone just because he's a 'rangers man' . That to me is just nepotism.

Edited December 16, 2014 by RANGERRAB

[forlanssister 3,050]

As much as I happily concede McCoist has to go and have suffered as much as anyone watching what he put out on the park.

 

The Board's campaign to completely trash him is rather unedifying and unbecoming of what Rangers should be.

 

Personally I hope he tells them to shove his contract up their arses and talks but I think that would be the least realistic outcome.