Ex-Rangers director Martin Bain ends bid for details of club's tax debts

[Bluedell 5,408]

Is Bain due something for him leaving? Yes. I don't have a problem with that.

 

What would a reasonable sum be for someone in his position? If I was drawing up a contract for CEO of Rangers I'd be going for 6 months. I don't know what Bain had in his contract before Murray left but suspect it was something like that. If it had been a year then I could accept it and probably wouldn't question it, but I suspect that Murray wasn't the sort of guy who would tie in positions like CEO of Rangers with a massive notice period when he didn't have to.

 

Is 2 years reasonable? I don't think so. A fixed term contract is very strange and it just strikes of directors knowing that they are going to get the boot and trying to screw the owners and is morally wrong and Bain deserves criticism for it. Many PLCs have a policy of not giving directors notice periods in excess of 1 year.

 

Is the 2 years legal? We don't know who authorised the new contract, when it was authorised and who actually had the power to authorise it so it's difficult to comment. However I seem to recall that PLC directors have to have notice periods in excess of 1 year ratified by an AGM and if that is the case it didn't happen and any pay-off should be adjusted accordingly.

[Bluedell 5,408]

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!

 

It was a constructive dismissal. I don't think that the fact that he ultimately resigned after being suspended for a period of time means a lot.

[Bluedell 5,408]

How much are you really due if you are sacked?

 

Most people get nowt and just have to get another job or sign on..

 

It depends for the reason for the "sacking". In Bain's position, I'm guessing that they would argue that they are making him redundant, particularly given that Russell has a different title. I would thyink that they would find it difficult to prove that he deserved to get sacked and when that happens people normally get a pay-off based on the notice period in their contract.

[capstans 0]

BTW is it not the case that "criminal" is sometimes a euphemism for "morally unjust" - especially in Scotland.

 

Thanks calscot I didn't see any point in explainimg it, defending the indefensible has reached new levels a reward for failure culture.

[craig 5,199]

Is Bain due something for him leaving? Yes. I don't have a problem with that.

 

What would a reasonable sum be for someone in his position? If I was drawing up a contract for CEO of Rangers I'd be going for 6 months. I don't know what Bain had in his contract before Murray left but suspect it was something like that. If it had been a year then I could accept it and probably wouldn't question it, but I suspect that Murray wasn't the sort of guy who would tie in positions like CEO of Rangers with a massive notice period when he didn't have to.

 

Is 2 years reasonable? I don't think so. A fixed term contract is very strange and it just strikes of directors knowing that they are going to get the boot and trying to screw the owners and is morally wrong and Bain deserves criticism for it. Many PLCs have a policy of not giving directors notice periods in excess of 1 year.

 

Is the 2 years legal? We don't know who authorised the new contract, when it was authorised and who actually had the power to authorise it so it's difficult to comment. However I seem to recall that PLC directors have to have notice periods in excess of 1 year ratified by an AGM and if that is the case it didn't happen and any pay-off should be adjusted accordingly.

 

Why would Bain deserve criticism for it ? If his contract was a 2 yr fixed term that would have surely been determined by the then Board ? A CEO's contract should not be decided by the CEO himself and I would suggest that is highly irregular and unlikely to have been the case here.

 

If anyone is to blame for Bain having a) a fixed contract and/or b) an extended notice period then the Board should be the ones taking the criticism. Unless Bain was part of the decision-making process. And if he was then that opens a whole new subject.

 

I suspect that your final paragraph is the legal justification that Rangers are likely using in this instance. Just a guess though.

[Bluedell 5,408]

Why would Bain deserve criticism for it ? If his contract was a 2 yr fixed term that would have surely been determined by the then Board ? A CEO's contract should not be decided by the CEO himself and I would suggest that is highly irregular and unlikely to have been the case here.

 

If anyone is to blame for Bain having a) a fixed contract and/or b) an extended notice period then the Board should be the ones taking the criticism. Unless Bain was part of the decision-making process. And if he was then that opens a whole new subject..

 

So who on the board decided that it would be a good idea to change the terms of Bain's contract and give him a fixed term and what was the rationale behind it? I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a large degree of instigation from Bain himself on the issue. I can't see why one of the others would think it was be a good idea.

 

However the board (presumably) must have given the OK on it and, yes, you are correct that they also deserve some criticism, although it's difficult to name any specifics on it as we would not know how the voting went.

[Danny 0]

Do you have any evidence whatsoever, to support your claim that he is a "criminal" or "should be facing an inquiry for his role at the club". If so you should turn it over to the proper authorities.

 

Why is it when someone makes a post with a strong opinion about something they believe, they're often met by the whole 'proooooooof' rebuttal. And a slightly snide invitation that they should begin a self-serving campaign of justice and should acquire handwritten or printed documents to hand over to the powers that be.

 

A bit of a nonsense reply.

 

Why can't people disagree with one other without the PROOOOOOOOOF fallacy being brought in?

[craig 5,199]

So who on the board decided that it would be a good idea to change the terms of Bain's contract and give him a fixed term and what was the rationale behind it? I find it hard to believe that there wasn't a large degree of instigation from Bain himself on the issue. I can't see why one of the others would think it was be a good idea.

 

However the board (presumably) must have given the OK on it and, yes, you are correct that they also deserve some criticism, although it's difficult to name any specifics on it as we would not know how the voting went.

 

I dont know and I suspect neither do you BD.

 

Our company is not a public company although we hold ourselves to pseudo PLC type standards - we have a compensation committee who will approve contracts etc on the opinion of the senior management (including the CEO). However, when it comes to the CEO's contract the CEO is absolutely nothing to do with that process, and rightly so. It would smack of conflict of interest.

 

I am not saying Bain wasnt involved in the process but he certainly shouldnt have been IMO. That could, for all we know, be one of the reasons the club are defending this action so vigorously.

 

I cant imagine that if the Board felt it was a bad idea (which they should, but they do have previous for making some strange decisions) they would ratify the contract of a CEO who produced said contract themselves.

 

If they did then every single one of them (including Bain), IMO, failed in their fiduciary duty to the club and its shareholders (other than any Board member who either abstained from the vote or voted against it.... assuming it was even voted on).

[craig 5,199]

Why is it when someone makes a post with a strong opinion about something they believe, they're often met by the whole 'proooooooof' rebuttal. And a slightly snide invitation that they should begin a self-serving campaign of justice and should acquire handwritten or printed documents to hand over to the powers that be.

 

A bit of a nonsense reply.

 

Why can't people disagree with one other without the PROOOOOOOOOF fallacy being brought in?

 

But if someone came on here and called you a criminal I would like to think you would, at the very least, ask where the proof is, no ? Calling someone a criminal is a pretty hefty accusation.

[Bluedell 5,408]

I dont know and I suspect neither do you BD.

 

Of course not, but I could have a good guess at who it wasn't (Greig, King, P Murray, McGill, Muir).

 

If they did then every single one of them (including Bain), IMO, failed in their fiduciary duty to the club and its shareholders (other than any Board member who either abstained from the vote or voted against it....

Agreed.