Martin Bain suspended

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I wonder where all this (mis?)information is coming from?

 

rangers arent exactly quashing the speculation.

 

internal politics are all well and good but not to the detriment of the club.

[Zappa 0]

i was very puzzled by his 250 grand wage rise roughly six weeks before miller left for a pittance. it has always niggled me.

 

greedy bastard. hope whyte takes him by the balls from an large height.

 

His salary was apparently partially club performance based (basic + bonus) and the club accounts show it going up and down year by year. It's gone down by quite large amounts some years as well as years where it's gone up significantly.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Zappa

[Kenzie1 0]

(1) What "misinformation" are you referring to? and (2) "Theft" is open to many interpretations, but if Bain did indeed - with the connivance of others - award himself a renewed contract that involved him receiving an enhanced pay off and, he did so without the approval of the majority shareholder (or any shareholder, come to that) then in the eyes of the law, that is tantamount to theft because it would be construed as a fiduciary action not in the best interests of the shareholders.

 

I'd like to know why you think that it's "unthinkable" that Bain would steal from the club? Do you know him that well?

 

Bain is a product of Murray's patronage. I don't think he has shone particularly brightly at his job nor do I think he was particularly well qualified for it in the first place. It seems that Murray sort of plucked him from the ether and placed him in the position of CEO. How many people in the business community had heard of Bain beforehand?

 

Peter Principle comes to mind here.

[Kenzie1 0]

True, but was his main job not to find a new owner for us in the long run?

 

That was only part of his job, and he failed miserably in that as well. As Chairman of Rangers plc he still had the responsibility of ensuring that the club was run on a firm financial footing. Something that he spectacularly - along with others on the board - failed to do. He did not carry out his fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders. Had he done so, i doubt we would have heard quite so much from Lloyds.

[boss 0]

We won't see Bain again - he is history.

 

Given how worried Bain looked on his return to Glasgow, it remains to be seen how much of his recent 'interesting' maneuverings, aided and abetted by an ex director, come out into the public domain. In particular, would these be:

 

1. in compliance with the Articles of the company?

2. within PLUS Market and Takeover Panel rules during an offer period?

3. ethical?

4. legal?

 

Just asking...

[Bluedell 5,679]

(1) What "misinformation" are you referring to? and (2) "Theft" is open to many interpretations, but if Bain did indeed - with the connivance of others - award himself a renewed contract that involved him receiving an enhanced pay off and, he did so without the approval of the majority shareholder (or any shareholder, come to that) then in the eyes of the law, that is tantamount to theft because it would be construed as a fiduciary action not in the best interests of the shareholders.

 

I'd like to know why you think that it's "unthinkable" that Bain would steal from the club? Do you know him that well?

 

Bain is a product of Murray's patronage. I don't think he has shone particularly brightly at his job nor do I think he was particularly well qualified for it in the first place. It seems that Murray sort of plucked him from the ether and placed him in the position of CEO. How many people in the business community had heard of Bain beforehand?

 

Peter Principle comes to mind here.

 

So where is your information coming from?

 

Edit: Also why would any new conditions require to be approved by the majority shareholder?

Edited May 28, 2011 by Bluedell

[Bluedell 5,679]

That was only part of his job, and he failed miserably in that as well. As Chairman of Rangers plc he still had the responsibility of ensuring that the club was run on a firm financial footing. Something that he spectacularly - along with others on the board - failed to do. He did not carry out his fiduciary responsibilities to the shareholders. Had he done so, i doubt we would have heard quite so much from Lloyds.

 

How as Chairman did he spectacularly fail at ensuring the club was run on a firm financial footing, when all the club saw during his chairmanship was an improvement in the club finances? He inherited a disaster when Murray ran away and it then improved.

[Zappa 0]

I'd like to know why you think that it's "unthinkable" that Bain would steal from the club? Do you know him that well?

 

I don't know him personally if that's what you mean, but he loves the club and he's been an employee of the club for a long time. Martin Bain had good job at Ibrox when a lot of the guys on forums calling him every name under the sun were still in nappies. I've cursed him myself in the past and often questioned if he was the right man for the job, but credit where credit is due; he's worked his way up over many years at Rangers by doing a good job and earning promotions. Working for Rangers has made him a wealthy man and I fail to see why he would steal from the club even when faced with the prospect of his time with Rangers nearing an end. Stealing from the club would be like stealing from the fans; it's unthinkable.

[Danny 0]

You read too many celtc forums.

 

I don't read any Celtic forums. This is what our own fans are saying. And it's plausible.

[Kenzie1 0]

So where is your information coming from?

 

Edit: Also why would any new conditions require to be approved by the majority shareholder?

 

(1) I'm sure you'll understand, but that information is confidential. (2) Any change to any contractual obligation would have to be approved by the majority shareholder as the company was at that time, in a state of flux.