craig 5,199 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Of course not, but I could have a good guess at who it wasn't (Greig, King, P Murray, McGill, Muir). If they were involved in any vote and abstained that counts as a "no" in any vote at Board level (least it does out here anyway...). How many were on the Board at the time ? They must be pretty close to being enough to veto such a contract. Perhaps the club are correct to defend this vigorously through the courts even though it is unsavoury. For the record, and this is more for capstans than you BD, I am by no means a "pro-Bain" person. More than anything I am playing devil's advocate. A contract is there to protect both parties, not just one. And it seems Bain is looking to protect his side of it, which is what most of us would do. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,408 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Craig, we don't know when the contract was agreed to but presumably it was 9. The 5 I've mentioned plus Bain and McIntyre, and McClelland and AJ. There's just so many unanswered questions on this. There's an argument that Whyte knew what it wopuld take to get rid of Bain and should have adjusted his offer to reflect that, and shouldn't now complain. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Maybe Whyte just has Bains' number and doesn't want to pay him a penny... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Maybe Whyte just has Bains' number and doesn't want to pay him a penny... He won't want to pay him, but that doesn't mean he's got his number. He suspended McIntyre along with Bain presumably for connected reasons, but made a settlement with McIntyre which says to me that he had nothing on the guy or else he'd have let it be settled in court. The damage to the club's image had been done before a settlement was agreed, so if he had anything on him he'd have taken it all the way. For all we know, Martin Bain has also been offered an out of court setllement by Whyte and has simply refused the offer..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 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? No harm whatsoever in having or expressing a strong opinion but when you start accusing someone of criminal activity, without having any evidence to back up your claims, that's a bit OTT in my opinion. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 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. I never sued Rangers for 1.3M quid. That lowers the opinion of many of a man many already regarded to be less than honest in his dealings. Furthermore, to be pedantic, as the chap has suggested, he used the word 'criminal' as opposed to saying Martin Bain is one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 No harm whatsoever in having or expressing a strong opinion but when you start accusing someone of criminal activity, without having any evidence to back up your claims, that's a bit OTT in my opinion. But even if there is evidence, it would be disputed regardless. As has happened with the BBC documentary on Whyte. Evidence isn't convincing unless it supports a case you're already on the side of. In modern times even hard evidence, documentary evidence, often doesn't sway opinion. Anyone who dislikes Bain would not consider his view OTT. It really just depends which side you're on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The thing I find strange and against common sense is that Bain was responsible for the financial HEALTH of the club - surely he and the board should have a duty to have some kind of severance policy in place that doesn't financially HARM the club - even for sacking CEO's. Why should a CEO be given around £600k a year plus a couple of hundred grand bonus and yet still have something like 10 times more severance protection than you're average Joe who could easily lose his house or struggle to afford life's basics if made unemployed? Shouldn't the poorer people have more protection than the rich? After all, Bain's wage for the last couple of years is more than most people earn in a lifetime. In fact the CEO is such an IMPORTANT job, it should have far LESS security so that they can be replaced easily and cheaply to save the company from mismanagement. In the viewpoint of the businesses I see why they should be allowed more than a few months notice to let them go for any reason - it should be in the nature of the job. Instead companies are forced either limp along with a poor CEO or almost bankrupting themselves trying to replace them. A former custodian of a company suing them for more than they can afford and freezing their assets just seems some kind of oxymoron to me. In the end I really can't see how people like Bain can be worth their wage - especially seeing as you could save your company about 600k a year by replacing them with someone competent on a pretty decent 200k a year... I can't see how Bain was like a highly sought after star striker and worth the extra dosh to make a massive difference. Using a euphemism, what he was paid seems criminal to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 But there is also the argument that a CEO is such an important position that you pay him handsomely, and have a hefty notice period, because he is difficult to replace. Cal, it is not always the case that a CEO is "easily replaced" especially when they are very good at their job. No, I am not saying Bain was good at his job. How easy would it be to replace Steve Jobs ? Apple was almost bankrupt prior to his return. He had built them into a mammoth company, basically got fired, company almost went under (the Chairman of the Board responsible for that decision admitted that had Jobs not come back Apple would have went bankrupt). There is always an argument opposed to the "easily replaced" one. The question for me would be "what did Bain do as CEO that had the board believing he was such an important person to the club" ? With no disrespect to Bain I reckon I could have done a better job as CEO at Rangers. But then.... I am a Rangers fan and wouldnt be invited to such a position..... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I never sued Rangers for 1.3M quid. That lowers the opinion of many of a man many already regarded to be less than honest in his dealings. Doesnt make it any less wrong. He is suing what he believes he is rightfully owed under the terms of his contract. Had the poster said something like "Bain is lower than a snake's belly for suing the club when he was part of the reason we are in the financial mess we are in" would be fine. To say he is criminal is, IMHO, wrong. Furthermore, to be pedantic, as the chap has suggested, he used the word 'criminal' as opposed to saying Martin Bain is one. That is semantics and you know it. Using the word criminal is basically calling him one. 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.