King To Sue D Murray

[ascender 352]

I knew we should have had some sort of bullshit statement bingo game going today as I think we'd now have a full house.

 

Clearly if Whyte says there's no reason for liquidation then it's a dead cert.

[Zappa 0]

Craig Whyte now commenting as well...

 

CW: I believe we will come out of administration by way of CVA. That is in the interests of the stockholders.

 

Craig Whyte responds to Dave King: There is absolutely no neccessity for #Rangers to go into liquidation.

 

I bet he's absolutely shitting himself.

[Bears 0]

I bet he's absolutely shitting himself.

 

I'd hate to be his boxer shorts right now

[calscot 0]

No, Bain had a beef with his employer and sought compensation from it in the same way as you would. Whether Bain's compensation is excessive is another matter but he was entitled to something.

 

There you go with the facile "entitled" argument. Say you injure yourself at your best friends house, and you are entitled to sue him - would you?

 

Bain required NO compensation IF he was worth his money AND he was a friend of the club. I can't believe I have to repeat this argument to a money person. The RIGHT thing to do would have been to find another commensurable job. Decent CEO's usually have absolutely no problem doing this and in fact often do so voluntarily just to move their career on. If he quit Rangers and started a new job the next day on equal pay, why would he need any compensation?

 

By "right thing" I mean the best win-win situation for him and Rangers. We are all entitled not to do the "right thing" but that is neither here nor there.

 

That may be your opinion but it looks like it's based on a dislike of Bain rather than anything factual.

 

That is another facile argument. I don't even know the man, I dislike his actions as I think they are not honourable as explained.

 

THere was no contravension of the loan repayments. It was still being paid off at £1m pa. Yoiu need to separate the loan and the revolving credit facility.

 

Maybe I do, but I believe you are still obviously wrong - otherwise there would have been no imperative to sell the club bar avoiding the tax issue.

 

Bain wasn't great at his job and he was overpaid, but you're getting a wee bit carried away when you suggest he's an enemy of the club. Revenge? He's a business man not some sort of thug.

 

To me he is an enemy of the club because he was a custodian and not only did not do right by it, after he left he attacked it and wounded it. He may have been "entitled to" but in my opinion a friend would not have done that. Whyte is also a businessman as is SDM as are Lloyds as are many people who have and continue to cause harm to the club. They may not be thugs but that does not mean they are friends. The antonym of friend is usually enemy. Maybe that can be interpretted as dramatic but it does not make it less valid.

 

There are all sorts of businessmen, being one does not make you a gentleman nor someone of virtue. If he was a competent businessman, he'd have no reason to sue Rangers due to having a new job. Suing Rangers wasn't business, it was personal and not the right thing to do. He had at about a year to find a new job.

 

 

That's a totally ridiculous statement.

 

It's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of my opinion. I think your reply has been ridiculous in its emptiness for someone so knowledgeable.

 

He's not a great CEO, but I'm not sure he could be described as incompetent.

 

Again it is a matter of opinion. May I should have just worded it - do you want someone of Bain's level of competence. Given his obvious track record in the job in question, I would guess most would say no. Would he get a vote of confidence? I would doubt it - that would question his competence - the antonym of competent is incompetent.

 

He appears to have operated under strict guidelines while Murray was in control, and seemed to have performed his duties as he was instructed. You and I may not have liked the way he did it, and there's a few areas that I took great exception to him, but it doesn't make him incompetent. His performance seemed to improve once Murray's shackles were off and he seemed to perform better, although there were still areas where improvement could be made.

 

I can't see how being a puppet or a yes man makes him more competent. It would suggest to me that he was possibly being paid more that his level of competence warranted and so was happy to take the large salary and do as he was told. It also doesn't say much about his level of integrity.

 

Who is complimenting Muir and Lloyds (apart from you)?

 

I'm really struggling with your arguments now. I am doing the opposite of complimenting Muir and Lloyds so perhaps you are misreading my post. It seems to have escaped your notice that Muir, Lloyds and the board have being getting compliments, at least backhandedly, for halving the debt in a few years. To me while the debt needed to be reduced, I thought the time-scale was damaging. The tax cases aside, I think it would have been better for the club to pay it back at a lesser rate over a longer period. The way it was done can be open to criticism as it was not transparent what they were doing and they misled the fans on many occasions. I feel it was also done overly aggressively - which I see as wrong.

 

 

Are you sure HMRC don't deserve to be complimented, or at least buttered up? Our club is still at risk and throwing them a bone is not a bad tactic. Neither of us know what negotiations have been taking place since administration and you don't have enough information to make any judgement on it.

 

None of us really have enough information to judge anything - and yet we do. Even the administrators are scratching their heads at a lot of stuff. Maybe Whyte IS our saviour - the possibility doesn't make us warm to him now. Maybe King is buttering HMRC up or throwing them a bone, doesn't mean that others have to follow his example on here. I have no idea of the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth on whether HMRC deserve to be complimented. However, it may just be the Rashimon effect, but from where I have been sitting, it looks like they have been totally unfair to Rangers in their handling of the case especially when compared with how other companies have been handled. If nothing else their publicity seeking behaviour and leaks have been despicable.

 

As for AJ, you call on Bain to have come out and criticise Whyte but you don't give AJ any credit for doing so.

 

The point is that both Bain and AJ, through their actions and poor initial standing, ruined their reputation as reliable witnesses. AJ only seemed to be spouting personal sour grapes - and frankly still does. If everything is true then he could have done this a lot better - AND RESIGNED and kiss and told immediately.

 

The bottom line is that the club could get a better and cheaper CEO than Bain but hysteria isn't going to help the whole process.

 

Hysteria is your interpretation but you were quick to pounce on my post. I just asked for people to stop giving what I see as false credit and false credence to actions and motives of people which if given a different perspective, look bad. I then argued that perspective.

 

If explaining a perspective is hysteria then the whole purpose of this board is hysterical to me...

[forlanssister 3,083]

Craig Whyte now commenting as well...

 

CW: I believe we will come out of administration by way of CVA. That is in the interests of the stockholders.

 

Craig Whyte responds to Dave King: There is absolutely no neccessity for #Rangers to go into liquidation.

 

Who did Whyte give his statement to, Tommy the Fenian Taliban taxi driver ?

[chilledbear 16]

Wouldn't it be lovely if after all the statements we have today .......

 

 

A fans spokesman released the following statement.

 

'You can all feck right off till we have some answers'

[Bluedell 5,408]

There you go with the facile "entitled" argument. Say you injure yourself at your best friends house, and you are entitled to sue him - would you?

 

What is being injured at a friend's house got to do with anything? It's an employer/employee relationship.

 

Bain required NO compensation IF he was worth his money AND he was a friend of the club. I can't believe I have to repeat this argument to a money person. The RIGHT thing to do would have been to find another commensurable job. Decent CEO's usually have absolutely no problem doing this and in fact often do so voluntarily just to move their career on. If he quit Rangers and started a new job the next day on equal pay, why would he need any compensation?

 

The right thing would have been for the club to pay him his redundancy. If the club lays off a lot of staff tomorrow do you expect the club to wait to see if they get new jobs before deciding whether whether they "need" any compensation? Are you saying that they are not friends of the club if they accept a pay-off?

 

 

That is another facile argument. I don't even know the man, I dislike his actions as I think they are not honourable as explained

Whether you dislike him or dislike his actions, your argument is still not based on fact.

 

 

 

Maybe I do, but I believe you are still obviously wrong - otherwise there would have been no imperative to sell the club bar avoiding the tax issue.

Avoiding the tax issue WAS the main reason, although there was also the fact that the club was inherently loss-making. There was no contravention of the loan repayments, but I'm happy for you to prove me wrong as you claim I am.

 

 

 

Would he get a vote of confidence? I would doubt it - that would question his competence - the antonym of competent is incompetent..

Vote of confidence from who? His peers? it seems that he has. From the punters? With all due respect, do they know the first thing about being a CEO? They'd probably show their lack of knowledge by describing him as a yes-man or puppet (sorry, couldn't resist:) )

 

Maybe Whyte IS our saviour

I think that this speaks for itself.

 

 

.

If everything is true then he could have done this a lot better - AND RESIGNED and kiss and told immediately.

I think he did fairly well given the lack of information available. Resign and kiss and tell? On the resignation is it better to try and change things from within or run away and have no influence? No correct answer to that but I can't criticise someone for taking the former approach.

[calscot 0]

What is being injured at a friend's house got to do with anything? It's an employer/employee relationship.

 

Sorry, I credited you with a bit more sophistication as to be able to be removed from an entrenched position by viewpoint on a principle provided with a different but relevant example. My mistake.

 

The right thing would have been for the club to pay him his redundancy. If the club lays off a lot of staff tomorrow do you expect the club to wait to see if they get new jobs before deciding whether whether they "need" any compensation? Are you saying that they are not friends of the club if they accept a pay-off?

 

You seem incapable of getting things in a more philosophical framework and remove yourself from the cut-throat world of business. The truth is he was sacked from a job he didn't even want from an employer he didn't respect or like. But the point transcends the business world. I can't believe you are so blind to this and you seem to demonstrate little knowledge of the every day world. Most people who don't like a job, find another one and leave with no compensation they generally do not hang around and criticise their bosses and create a situation where they will be sacked and then sue the company for a year's worth of wages.

 

If you have a conscience and the company you are working for is struggling financially AND you have helped steer it into that position, one would expect someone of decency would pick the option of quitting for another job if it is available as that is kinder to the club - and when you think about it it's also kinder to yourself. I can't believe I'm still having to explain this to an educated person. Really, which bit of this are you struggling so badly with? Since when did principles become so removed from business - I thought the business world was original built on it but I can't even get you on the subject. Not only that, I have been led to believe "good" business is based on win-win deals.

 

You are not friends of any company in trouble you take money from when you have lost nothing. McCulloch is "entitled" to claim his wage till the end of his contract; however, he offered to play for nothing. Now perhaps that's because he will be the first to go under administration but he has shown a lot of "friendship" that is lacking from Bain. In most companies, no-one really cares if you are a friend or not - it's just business, but Rangers are much MORE than a business and as the custodian you are expected to have more empathy for the club itself. Tens of thousands of people do care what you do to the club business/entitlement or not. And despite what YOU say they are entitled to make their judgements.

 

Whether you dislike him or dislike his actions, your argument is still not based on fact.

 

What are you on about? Can you actually make a real point when it's not about accountancy? My argument is based on facts of Bain's actions as how I see them and then juxtaposed with what I see as normal moral codes and philosophies of decent human beings. The latter is not based on fact but nor should it be! I'm sure even Spock could grasp the concept of morality which is the crux of what I'm arguing about.

 

Avoiding the tax issue WAS the main reason, although there was also the fact that the club was inherently loss-making. There was no contravention of the loan repayments, but I'm happy for you to prove me wrong as you claim I am.

 

Well you are supposed to be the money man: was the loan repaid as per the original time-scale of the agreement or was pressure put on to pay it early? I think the FACTS suggest the latter. I don't think you need a degree in accounting to work that out. I'm basing my argument on facts and common sense.

 

Vote of confidence from who? His peers? it seems that he has. From the punters? With all due respect, do they know the first thing about being a CEO? They'd probably show their lack of knowledge by describing him as a yes-man or puppet (sorry, couldn't resist:) )

 

I think you are showing a lack of respect for the punters who paid the guys wages AND who may pay for his pay off. But again you are wrong with facts. There are many educated people out there who are saying that Rangers have been badly run during the time he was CEO. You seem to be the exception to the rule. Your knowledge of this seems very poor and you seem to believe crony-ism as fact.

 

I think that this speaks for itself.

 

I think your sanctimony speaks for itself. You don't need to understand the ins and outs of everything to make moral judgements. However, you give the impression you don't get this at all.

 

Not once have you engaged with moral nub of the argument but have steered around it by implying your greater knowledge - but without showing any.

 

I think he did fairly well given the lack of information available. Resign and kiss and tell? On the resignation is it better to try and change things from within or run away and have no influence? No correct answer to that but I can't criticise someone for taking the former approach.

 

Trouble is he didn't take the former approach, he took the latter and then proceeded to change things for the WORSE at a time of crisis. For that I criticise him and I assume many others do also.

 

Can I also say, just because YOU yourself cannot criticise someone for being self-serving, cut-throat and ruthlessly businesslike, doesn't mean others can't. To be honest, I can't imagine where you can criticise Whyte, as after all, it looks like he all business and no heart and everything he has so far not been shown to be outside the rules of business.

Edited March 7, 2012 by calscot

[Bluedell 5,408]

I think that we'll need to agree to disagree, Calscot.

[calscot 0]

I think that we'll need to agree to disagree, Calscot.

 

To be honest I'd prefer a proper discourse in the same domain of subject matter but I agree to let it be.