Donald McIntyre has resigned as Rangers' finance director.

[craig 5,199]

I hear what your saying BD but would you expect trouble if you signed an open letter more or less saying the new owner of the company isn't up to the job. I would expect to be asked to resign.

 

You are right, you would probably expect to be asked to resign. But that doesnt mean you should, nor are you obliged to.

[Bluedell 5,553]

I hear what your saying BD but would you expect trouble if you signed an open letter more or less saying the new owner of the company isn't up to the job. I would expect to be asked to resign.

 

As Craig says, it was before he started. Yes, he would expect to not stay in his position and would expect to get paid off in terms of his contract. The only issue may be is who approved the contract, if he got an enhanced one in line with Bain.

[calscot 0]

He was carrying out his responsibiilities as a director. He should be credited for performing his duties although that led to the risk of him losing his job. The easy option would be to have sat and done nothing and not told everyone of his concerns but that would not have been carrying out his duties properly.

 

 

This may be true, but I don't see how it answers my point. My point is that comparing his behaviour to your average employee is completely disingenuous and I would even say incredibly naive.

 

 

 

I fail to see why the salary a person gets should affect their employment rights.

 

I fail to see why it should either, but it patently does. It seems to me the more money you earn, the more rights you have.

 

 

It seems that there's a lot of jealousy and hypocrisy in this thread.

 

That's a good laugh. If you don't agree with the immoral actions and greed of the top tier of earners then you must be jealous and hypocritical. It doesn't matter that these people are trying to fleece a general public who in turn think they have done very little to deserve what they earn.

 

I think it is very sad that you need to learn that there is a lot more to life than money, and the moral actions of the highest paid become more and more sickening to the general population as we become more enlightened to their sleaze.

 

People may be jealous of some of the money earned by the top tier of society but they are not the ones showing the same scale of greed and hypocrisy as the high earners.

 

I've known quite a few more average earners who quit a job on principle, because their position became intolerable, or because they didn't get on with their new boss, and then spent all their savings while desperately looking for another job. I don't know anyone who has worked for a few years for a company where they got the job due to crony-ism, performed the job in a way that was ridiculed in the press and by customers, publicly bad mouthed new owners and boss after a takeover, and then sued them for well over a year's wages and bonuses, while freezing some of their bank account, after not being considered not good enough for the job - then having a high likelihood of walking into another highly paid position.

 

I really don't think there are many people "jealous" of that - just incredulous. You may as well accuse those who didn't like the behaviour of Michael Carroll as being jealous of his previous wealth...

 

I'll say again, the situation and behaviour of these guys are light years away from your average earner so as to be incomparable.

[ian1964 10,707]

Former Rangers director Donald McIntyre has launched a legal bid to have £300,000 of the club's assets frozen pending a breach of contract case.

 

Lawyers acting for the former finance director made the application at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

 

It was heard by Lord Hodge, who last month ring-fenced £480,000 over a case by former chief executive Martin Bain.

 

During that hearing, the judge said Rangers were at "risk of insolvency" over tax claims against the club.

 

Mr McIntyre resigned as Rangers' finance director earlier this week - five months after being suspended, along with Mr Bain, by the Scottish champions.

Tax claims

 

He took the decision to resign over his exclusion from matters of corporate governance.

 

Mr Bain launched a legal action against Rangers last month for breach of contract.

 

The club is contesting the action and has lodged a counter claim against him for damages alleging breach of fiduciary duty, which he denies.

 

During Mr Bain's move to freeze assets at Rangers, ahead of his case being heard, Lord Hodge was told that the club was facing two tax claims.

 

One was for £2.8m, while the other was for £49m - comprising £35m of tax and a further £14m in interest and penalties, which is under appeal.

 

In granting Mr Bain an arrestment for £480,000, Lord Hodge said: "I am satisfied that there is a real and substantial risk of insolvency if the tax appeal were to be decided against Rangers."

 

Mr McIntyre is bidding to secure an arrestment in his case for £300,000 - the same sum he is seeking from Rangers.

 

The Ibrox club was not represented at the hearing and the motion, which was heard with the press excluded from proceedings, was continued until next week.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15292896

[craig 5,199]

This may be true, but I don't see how it answers my point. My point is that comparing his behaviour to your average employee is completely disingenuous and I would even say incredibly naive.

 

Which behaviour ? Him trying to get compensation for what one would assume is an alleged unfair dismissal ? Why should that not be compared to the average employee ? Because if the average employee were unfairly dismissed they would more than likely try to find a case against said employer. McIntyre is no different just because he works/worked for the club we support and got paid handsomely to do so.

 

Try to ignore the financial concequence to the club and see it as it is. An employee gets, effectively, sacked for what he deems unfair dismissal. Well within his rights under the Act to sue for compensation under the terms of his contract. Unless you know what his contract calls for you (and I and us all) have no idea what protection his contract affords him.

 

I fail to see why it should either, but it patently does. It seems to me the more money you earn, the more rights you have.

 

This is nonsense calscot. The Employment Rights Act is there to protect everyone employed and under its protection. You see more "high earners" utilising (not abusing....) the Employment Rights Act because it is more newsworthy than lower earners. Anyone has the same Employment Rights. To suggest that isnt the case is disingenous.

 

Now, were you to suggest that high earners get an advantage because they have the cash to pay legal fees to ensure the Act is upheld would be fine. But to suggest they have more rights because of what they earn is, I am afraid, nonsense.

 

That's a good laugh. If you don't agree with the immoral actions and greed of the top tier of earners then you must be jealous and hypocritical. It doesn't matter that these people are trying to fleece a general public who in turn think they have done very little to deserve what they earn.

 

I think it is very sad that you need to learn that there is a lot more to life than money, and the moral actions of the highest paid become more and more sickening to the general population as we become more enlightened to their sleaze.

 

What has McIntyre done that is immoral ? His job ? Wow, some very high moral standards you are holding him to. Realistically he has done his job, been fired, believes it was unjust, has sued (again, it will be under the terms of his contract more than likely - so the amount he is suing for is probably what his contract calls for... which the CLUB signed too). So... just how has he been immoral ? Serious question, because I simply dont get it.

 

People may be jealous of some of the money earned by the top tier of society but they are not the ones showing the same scale of greed and hypocrisy as the high earners.

 

They arent ? You dont believe that people are greedy ? Go tell that the the little old granny whose grandson has robbed her of her weekly pension and she doesnt have money to buy groceries. Or how about all the benefit cheats ? They arent being greedy ?

 

People are greedy regardless of whether they get paid millions a year or a few thousand a year. Again, the bigger numbers attract more newsworthy press attention. That absolutely does not mean that they are any more greedy than the average Joe.

 

I've known quite a few more average earners who quit a job on principle, because their position became intolerable, or because they didn't get on with their new boss, and then spent all their savings while desperately looking for another job. I don't know anyone who has worked for a few years for a company where they got the job due to crony-ism, performed the job in a way that was ridiculed in the press and by customers, publicly bad mouthed new owners and boss after a takeover, and then sued them for well over a year's wages and bonuses, while freezing some of their bank account, after not being considered not good enough for the job - then having a high likelihood of walking into another highly paid position.

 

Those who quit the job on principle did it because they CHOSE to do it, I have to assume. Quite clearly this is not the case with McIntyre. Their position may have become intolerable or they didnt get along with the new boss etc etc - but how is that relevant to McIntyre's situation. Is there any suggestion that his job was intolerable to him ? Or that he didnt get along with the new boss ? McIntyre didnt CHOOSE to leave his job, he was pushed out. So your example is, in my himble opinion, very barely relevant. Why should he have quit if he liked his job, if it was tolerable to him ?

 

Again, those people quit because they CHOSE to. The fact that they blew their savings is, again, irrelevant in my opinion. Actually, you used naive earlier - them quitting with nothing to go to is naivety (although, admittedly, some situations will make you walk away with disregard to the financial consequence). But this matter not in the case of McIntyre as there is nothing to suggest he didnt want to remain in his job.

 

Did McIntyre get his job through cronyism ? Serious question, I dont know. However, as FD I would assume that he has the financial credentials for the position otherwise he likely wouldnt have got the job.

 

As for the press ridiculing him.... they ridicule people all the time and more often than not it is unjustified. Now, sure, I think RFC were financially mismanaged whilst McIntyre was part of the custodianship.

 

He didnt publicly bad mouth the new owners to the best of my knowledge. The previous board suggested Whyte didnt have the financial clout to do what he said he would... but that was, IIRC, BEFORE the takeover was finalised.

 

If he has sued for a year's wages you can bet that it is because his contract stipulates that. And the club signing his contract is not his fault. It is the club's for giving such a golden goodbye. The freezing of the bank account is to ensure his claim can be met. The way you state it above makes it sound as if it is in addition to (just how it appears to me....).

 

Even if he is not considered good enough for the job there is a formal procedure to follow. You cant just sack someone without due cause. Verbal warning, two written warnings (at least I think that is the case). There are, though, instances where you can have instant dismissal obviously - which appears to be the case here, but one that McIntyre refutes. There is no indication this due process ever happened in McIntyre's case.

 

I really don't think there are many people "jealous" of that - just incredulous. You may as well accuse those who didn't like the behaviour of Michael Carroll as being jealous of his previous wealth...

 

True, they likely arent jealous. However, if you took away the AMOUNT of money he is suing for, if you took away the salary he was receiving, and if you took away the fact it is happening to the club we all support..... then you would probably be saying "good for him, get what is due you from the big bad corporate world".

 

And when you get down to the PRINCIPLE of what McIntyre is doing... then he is simply doing what he is entitled to do under the Employment Rights Act and his contract definitions. I fail to see how that makes him immoral. Should we be questioning Craig Whyte's morals for suspending an employee doing their job ?

 

Personally I reserve judgement until we know why he was suspended because until then we cant be sure what happened.

 

I'll say again, the situation and behaviour of these guys are light years away from your average earner so as to be incomparable.

 

I dont think it is. Their financial situation is far different, yes. Moral situation ? Not in my opinion. They have a moral obligation to protect themselves and their family. Same as you and me.

 

As for behaviour ? Again, no different to the average Joe. Plenty of greed to go around unfortunately and that is not pre-determined by how much you have or how much you earn.

[GovanAllan 0]

Anybody else yearn for the days when it was all about football.

[craig 5,199]

Anybody else yearn for the days when it was all about football.

 

Yup.

 

But.... I would rather have what we have now as the 2 years of zero investment in the playing squad.

[54andcounting 0]

Yup.

 

But.... I would rather have what we have now as the 2 years of zero investment in the playing squad.

 

Agreed, zero investment meant non qualification in Europe against teams that shouldn't even be there......then again, 3 in a row was nice.

 

What ever happened to that once great club, our greatest rivals? They invest - don't qualify for Europe (unless it's for some desparate appeal to EUFA) and can't win the league for hate or money? Weird.

[Bluedell 5,553]

This may be true, but I don't see how it answers my point. My point is that comparing his behaviour to your average employee is completely disingenuous and I would even say incredibly naive.

 

It shows your lack of understanding of the situation.

 

 

I fail to see why it should either, but it patently does. It seems to me the more money you earn, the more rights you have.

 

Let's stick to the case in hand. He doesn't have more rights than anyone else, and some are claiming that he should not even exercise these rights.

 

 

 

That's a good laugh. If you don't agree with the immoral actions and greed of the top tier of earners then you must be jealous and hypocritical. It doesn't matter that these people are trying to fleece a general public who in turn think they have done very little to deserve what they earn.

 

"Immoral"? I think that you're making my argument for me.

 

I think it is very sad that you need to learn that there is a lot more to life than money, and the moral actions of the highest paid become more and more sickening to the general population as we become more enlightened to their sleaze.

 

You're now having a go at me? Playing the man rather than the ball shows the weakness in your argument.

[chilledbear 16]

You would think someone who was in the business of acquiring and turning round failing/failed Companies, would know the ins and outs of getting rid of unwanted Directors.