GovanAllan 0 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Think you've been in Bermuda too long Craig. I read it as criminal a word used to describe someone who can't do something very well. ie. Wyldes crossing was criminal today. :smile: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 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. That is semantics and you know it. Using the word criminal is basically calling him one. So if say to the wife I got away with murder at my work today that means that I have murdered someone. Or he has kicked the bucket means he actually kicked a bucket. I am afraid I am not with you on this one Craig we say many things that don't actually mean what the official word means. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Quite possibly you guys are right. However, look at the context of the original post : "criminal, should be facing an inquiry for his role at the club" - surely you can agree that this could be construed as someone thinking that there was the allegation of criminal activity ?? It may not have been, and capstans may not have been implying that, but it is, IMO, easy to see where the misunderstanding occurs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Quite possibly you guys are right. However, look at the context of the original post : "criminal, should be facing an inquiry for his role at the club" - surely you can agree that this could be construed as someone thinking that there was the allegation of criminal activity ?? It may not have been, and capstans may not have been implying that, but it is, IMO, easy to see where the misunderstanding occurs. Agree but lets not get into the grammar discussion. He did say inquiry and not criminal inquiry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 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. It seems to me then that if a CEO makes a real difference he should be rewarded however, if he's doing badly why should he have a hefty notice period? It doesn't seem to be in the interests of the company and also doesn't really make sense to normal people why you would have to pay someone a fortune to bugger off because they are crap at their 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. I never said all CEO's are easily replaced but I'm sure Jobs didn't have the equivalent of a Billion dollar severance if he was sacked after taking Apple to the brink of bankruptcy. Anyway not the best example for me as I thought what the guy did with apple was quite evil - you can be evil in many ways and I think taking capitalism to extremes to fleece ordinary people out of money while pulling the wool over their eyes is pretty evil. You can go on about the lovely goods he supplied people but isn't it supposed to be the devil who gives great gifts but then later takes your soul in return...? He took Apple from the brink to being the richest company in the world by being the worlds greatest swindler. I don't know why that should be rewarded - more like criminalised. 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..... That's one of my points so glad you agree. We can see why we need to pay Jelavic £1M a year but we'd annoyed if we gave the same to a very average SFL player who didn't show any competence or any empathy for the club. I really can't see what Bain did that was worth more than an average executive wage - and I'm stretching there. I'd have preferred having you in the position instead of Bain - although I still wouldn't want you to be paid £600k a year plus bonus... I actually think the wage comes arbitrarily due to the fact that it might be considered insulting for a CEO to be paid far less than a significant proportion of the staff... However, with Bain hardly in demand and the role not seemingly requiring some kind of guru, I don't see why we can't bring someone competent in for a decent salary but with one month salary per year worked redundancy built in - and the possibility to easily make them redundant if key performance indicators are not met. I can't see how it's legal to lay off 4000 average wagers at a time and yet illegal to do so for an executive. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 It seems to me then that if a CEO makes a real difference he should be rewarded however, if he's doing badly why should he have a hefty notice period? It doesn't seem to be in the interests of the company and also doesn't really make sense to normal people why you would have to pay someone a fortune to bugger off because they are crap at their job. How do you determine the reward when the CEO hasnt had the chance to prove himself ? The contract will be given, at least in terms of a new CEO, before they have proven themselves. Companies will often tie their CEO (and other key managers) to prohibitive contracts to ensure they are not head-hunted away. It is the norm. If Bain had proven himself to be a very astute CEO then he could have been a sought-after individual from, say, the EPL. If he is not tied into a long-term contract/notice period then he could just walk. Which would have the effect of the club losing a very good CEO and having to replace them with little lead time to do so. Extended notice periods for CEO's are most definitely the norm. It protects the company/club as much as it protects the individual. If the CEO wasnt an important position they would be on the same month's notice as most other people. Bain's notice period is not really his problem. It is the problem of those that gave him the contract, probably the Board. And they obviously made the judgement that he was doing a decent enough job to reward him with a contract and hefty notice period (but lets not forget that this case is not about notice period, it is about unfair dismissal which is different altogether). Bain may have been crap at his job, and I dont disagree. However, the manner in which we see his duties is different to the duties as set forth by his employers. Seems they felt he was doing a good enough job, otherwise they would surely have given him the appropriate warnings as required under the Employment Act and ultimately dismissed him. But they didnt, which suggests that they were happy with the function he was undertaking. I never said all CEO's are easily replaced but I'm sure Jobs didn't have the equivalent of a Billion dollar severance if he was sacked after taking Apple to the brink of bankruptcy. But when you set out the contract how do you know which ones are, and which ones are not, easily replaced ? Jobs proved that he wasnt easily replaced and the company almost went under as a result of it. Hypothetical I know (and also a tad ironic) but what if Bain was to Rangers what Jobs was to Apple ? And we just let him walk because we didnt have him on a proper retention ? That certainly wouldnt have been in the interests of the club, would it ? Anyway not the best example for me as I thought what the guy did with apple was quite evil - you can be evil in many ways and I think taking capitalism to extremes to fleece ordinary people out of money while pulling the wool over their eyes is pretty evil. You can go on about the lovely goods he supplied people but isn't it supposed to be the devil who gives great gifts but then later takes your soul in return...? You are bringing something into the debate that doesnt need to be there. Jobs being evil is, IMO, irrelevant to what we are debating. I dont know the detail of how you (I think Zappa, could be wrong, felt the same way) think Jobs is evil but it isnt really relevant to this. Create a new thread on it perhaps (genuinely... I would be interested in where that chain of thought comes from). He took Apple from the brink to being the richest company in the world by being the worlds greatest swindler. I don't know why that should be rewarded - more like criminalised. What did he swindle ? Why wasnt he convicted ? Again, irrelevant, for the most part, to the debate. That's one of my points so glad you agree. We can see why we need to pay Jelavic £1M a year but we'd annoyed if we gave the same to a very average SFL player who didn't show any competence or any empathy for the club. I really can't see what Bain did that was worth more than an average executive wage - and I'm stretching there. I'd have preferred having you in the position instead of Bain - although I still wouldn't want you to be paid £600k a year plus bonus... How much is the average executive wage for a high-profile publicly registered institution ? Genuine question. I know a qualified accountant can get 100k and they would be middle management (would be a GOOD job and a good wage admittedly, but still would be "just" middle management). Was Bain's salary 600k plus bonus ? I didnt think it was as high as that. I thought it was nearer 400k. How much does Lawell get at Celtic ? I would consider that to be Bain's peer (although it could easily be argued that Lawell has done a far better job). Believe me.... if you had the right and offered me the CEO's position at Rangers I wouldnt even ask for 600k plus a bonus. I would do it for a fraction of that if truth be told. But you can bet there would still be supporters saying it was too much I actually think the wage comes arbitrarily due to the fact that it might be considered insulting for a CEO to be paid far less than a significant proportion of the staff... I am not as convinced as you about this. CEO wages in the UK for public entities are pretty high. I used to audit a run-of-the-mill IT company in Glasgow and the company was technically insolvent... and the CEO still walked away with 200k+ a year (and that was 12 years ago). But you could be right, even though I am not convinced. However, with Bain hardly in demand and the role not seemingly requiring some kind of guru, I don't see why we can't bring someone competent in for a decent salary but with one month salary per year worked redundancy built in - and the possibility to easily make them redundant if key performance indicators are not met. Now you are just talking sense. But some potential candidates would refuse that offer because they have better contracts where they are. And that is an element to the notice period etc too.... if peers are getting 6 months notice period or golden handshakes or golden parachutes etc etc then they would expect the same from their current employer. Similar to players.... if they currently get a club car free of charge, they will expect one with a new employer. Not all players would be like that, I agree. But many would. And if you want the right person in, you will have to make a trade-off between the BEST person and their demands OR someone who "will do" but at a lower cost. I can't see how it's legal to lay off 4000 average wagers at a time and yet illegal to do so for an executive. There is due legal process cal. Not sure who the average 4,000 wagers are but you cant simply sack a CEO (nor should you be able to sack anyone for that matter) without proper justification. I could be wrong here but it seems to me that some of this was that Craig Whyte disliked the fact Bain was against his purchasing Rangers and wanted shot of Bain - which is reasonable enough to me as you want loyal people - but, on the face of it, it seems he didnt find proper justification for the suspension he made. There could very well be more to it than that (such as Bain granting himself a contract etc etc etc) and I hope for the sake of the club that there was proper justification but we just dont have the knowledge to know for sure. Do I think Bain was worth his salary ? No I dont. Should he sue for unfair dismissal ? I dont see why he shouldnt if he feels he has done nothing wrong. Should fans be annoyed at him for doing so ? Yes, I think so. He was part of the reason for the financial melt-down at the club and now he seeks to personally gain financially again. Would I do the same as him if I felt unjustly fired ? Hard to say, depends on the situation but there is always that possibility. Dont get me wrong, I dislike him suing the club as much as the next person. But I also try to look at it objectively in terms of contractual obligation. Subjectively I am annoyed that he has done so as it harms the club. Objectively if he is due it under his contract then he has the right to sue. I have a colleague here who is being stiffed by the company out of his bonus because he has handed in his notice and bonuses are paid out in March. I have told him that I am fighting for him to get the bonus he should because he has performed the duties as requested and he has done the best job he could. I could just have said "tough luck buddy" (which is what the company are doing) but I just morally think it is wrong. Slightly different scenario, I admit, but I still make the attempt to apply logics and objectivity to these things - and try not to be too emotional about them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I could be wrong here but it seems to me that some of this was that Craig Whyte disliked the fact Bain was against his purchasing Rangers and wanted shot of Bain - which is reasonable enough to me as you want loyal people - but, on the face of it, it seems he didnt find proper justification for the suspension he made. There could very well be more to it than that (such as Bain granting himself a contract etc etc etc) and I hope for the sake of the club that there was proper justification but we just dont have the knowledge to know for sure. Isn't this the knub of the issue? My understanding is that Johnston granted Bain the contract extension without the knowledge or approval of the Board but that would be the Rangers FC Board's problem not Bain's. Is anyone here seriously suggesting that if they had been suspended and had not been charged under normal company disciplinary procedures and effectively faced constructive dismissal from a two year contract, they wouldn't fight for as much as they could get? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Maybe Whyte just has Bains' number... More like the other way about, which is why I'm told that Bain has already turned down £500k to settle. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 More like the other way about, which is why I'm told that Bain has already turned down £500k to settle. I guessed that might be the case and suggested as much in post #34 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 For all we know, Martin Bain has also been offered an out of court setllement by Whyte and has simply refused the offer..... Correct (message too short apparently!) 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.