gisabeer 409 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 500 k ringfenced. thats a new player. fucking baldy prick 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
capstans 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 That won't be a no his actions in suing the club are nothing short of criminal after what he presided over along with murray and his sycophants, they looked after your interests well didn't they. If it wasn't for Whyte despite his faults, you mote than likely wouldn't have any interests to worry about. murray and his gang had no intention of taking any possible tax hit. Thamkfully looking around the other boards yours appears to be a lone voice, no bad thing for the club or our case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 He should've fell on his sword and I mean a real one. :fuming: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 That won't be a no his actions in suing the club are nothing short of criminal after what he presided over along with murray and his sycophants, they looked after your interests well didn't they. If his actions were "nothing short of criminal" then surely the courts would have laughed his case out of court. They didnt, which suggests his case is not criminal. It is FACT that his suing his employers for unfair dismissal is not criminal. He is well within his rights to do so. You may not like what has happened to the club under his stewardship, and neither do most of us, but he has a contract with the club which he believes he had been carrying out. In his opinion he was suspended unjustly and ultimately forced to resign. He therefore feels he has a case. It would appear that the courts would agree that he has a case as they have not dismissed it and have ring-fenced funds in case of Bain obtaining victory. If it wasn't for Whyte despite his faults, you mote than likely wouldn't have any interests to worry about. There is absolutely no saying whether that is the case or not. In fact, under the guidance of Muir & LBG (If you believe they were running the show) the club had clipped 10 mill off the debt, all while we still won the SPL. Now, I suspect that there would have continued to be downsizing under their stewardship but we did pay 4 mill for Jelavic whilst they were allegedly running the show. So there is no evidence to suggest we would have gone under. In fact, there isnt anything to suggest that we might not still go under. Whyte is openly talking about the possibility of an administration or "liquidation event" - something LBG didnt do IIRC. I think you are giving Whyte premature credit. Admittedly, the tax liability didnt come about under Whyte's watch but he knew exactly what he was buying. murray and his gang had no intention of taking any possible tax hit. Why would they when they had someone willing to take on the potential liability ? Further, how is it "Murray and his gang" - this liability is one of the club's. With Murray having 85%+ ownership it really should just be "Murray" to all intents and purposes. The others were "just" employees. Thamkfully looking around the other boards yours appears to be a lone voice,no bad thing for the club or our case. No, BH's voice isnt a lone voice. Even if it was, it doesnt make it wrong. Seems you think you KNOW that Bain is being criminal when we all know that is NOT the case, otherwise the club would have had him charged, especially when he is claiming almost 1 mill from the club. You really shouldnt let your anti-Bain emotions get the better of you when debating this. Under the terms of his contract he will be entitled to compensation in the event of it being terminated by the club (assuming he has a somewhat standardised contract). There is nothing criminal in pursuing that, nothing at all. You could argue that it ismorally unjust given what happened under his watch as CEO, but criminal ? Nope, highly unlikely. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 How much are you really due if you are sacked? Most people get nowt and just have to get another job or sign on. Tell you something, if employers have any common sense, Bain will really struggle to get another job now. I can't see how any company would touch him with a bargepole. But then my kind of logic doesn't seem to fit when it comes to high wage earners. I really don't know how most of them deserve to earn such ludicrous amounts and get away with some of the stuff they do. The bankers are a huge case in point. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 How much are you really due if you are sacked? Most people get nowt and just have to get another job or sign on. Tell you something, if employers have any common sense, Bain will really struggle to get another job now. I can't see how any company would touch him with a bargepole. But then my kind of logic doesn't seem to fit when it comes to high wage earners. I really don't know how most of them deserve to earn such ludicrous amounts. The bankers are a huge case in point. If unfairly dismissed ? I would think the remainder of your contract. Part of the reason he is suing is likely because of the very fact he will struggle to get another job. Not all bankers caused the crisis. Basically, they allowed the Quants carte blanche to package a bunch of shit and sell it as gold. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 BTW is it not the case that "criminal" is sometimes a euphemism for "morally unjust" - especially in Scotland. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 How much are you really due if you are sacked? I think if you sacked ie. contract terminated, you are due remuneration. However, Bain was suspended, then resigned!!! My take on resignation is a voluntary cancelling of contract & therefore shouldn't be due any further remuneration. I may be wrong, but it you resign from a job, you are not eligible for dole money??? I'm not clear on how Bain can sue for wrongful dismissal when he officially resigned (according to reports). Obviously not aware of full facts, so maybe (probably..) way off the mark! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 If unfairly dismissed ? I would think the remainder of your contract. I have a permanent contract so would I get 23 years wages? :fish: Part of the reason he is suing is likely because of the very fact he will struggle to get another job. I would suggest the suing itself and the freezing of assets reduces his chances the most... If he really has a case then there would be no reason not to employ him. Not all bankers caused the crisis. Basically, they allowed the Quants carte blanche to package a bunch of shit and sell it as gold. Yeah, I was generalising but they still seem to be obscenely recompensed while the country is in crisis. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) How much are you really due if you are sacked? Most people get nowt and just have to get another job or sign on. Tell you something, if employers have any common sense, Bain will really struggle to get another job now. I can't see how any company would touch him with a bargepole. But then my kind of logic doesn't seem to fit when it comes to high wage earners. I really don't know how most of them deserve to earn such ludicrous amounts and get away with some of the stuff they do. The bankers are a huge case in point. I can't speak for Scotland but for normal people in Holland(not top managers they seem to be a race apart) the normal pay out is 1 months wages for every year that you have worked. My company is expecting a dip in the year 2016 and have stated they may be forced to let fast workers leave. As I will be 16 years employed I would be entitled to 16x1 months wages plus the wages due to me for that time P.S. I believe there is a cap of 30 years. Edited January 18, 2012 by pete 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.