Requisitioner says Ally McCoist deserves full pay-off at Rangers

[Frankie 8,562]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/requisitioner-says-ally-mccoist-deserves-full-pay-off-at-rangers-192073n.114667550

 

RANGERS boss Ally McCoist deserves his full pay-off - for standing by the Ibrox club and becoming its figurehead during the dark days of administration.

 

That was the message today from one of the Gers supporters who tried to get elected on to the board of the stricken Glasgow giants at the AGM last year.

 

McCoist has come under fire after the SPFL Championship club confirmed he had handed in his resignation and started a 12-month notice period.

 

A statement released to the London Stock Exchange yesterday read: "During the notice period, Mr McCoist's salary will increase significantly to £750,000 per annum."

 

Rangers are operating at a massive loss and it was revealed they will need to find £8million in additional funding next year in order to stay afloat.

 

And the news that the manager, who took a 50 per cent pay cut back in January, is now receiving so much money, has not gone down well with many fans.

 

McCoist and his legal representatives are set to hold talks with the Rangers board tomorrow in an attempt to reach a settlement.

 

However, Alex Wilson, one of the "Requisitioners" who attempted to become a director, has no problems with the manager receiving what the Ibrox club offered him.

 

He said: "I won't fault him for exercising a clause that is in his contract. I don't blame him for taking that. He hasn't got a case to answer.

 

"Fans have got mixed views on his capabilities as a manager, but nobody can doubt what he has gone through. He has stuck with us through thick and thin.

 

"The terms of the clause will have been part of the agreement that was made when he took a cut. It must have reverted to what it was before.

 

"So many people have come and gone at the club and taken huge sums of money. People who have only been there in the short term and who have been guilty of gross ineptitude.

 

"These are the same people who paid off Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Graham Wallace. These people all had short tenures at the club or had no affection for the club."

 

Wilson, who worked for multi-national companies BT, Ford, Guinness and ICI during a 40-year business career, was surprised to see McCoist's new salary outlined in the Stock Exchange statement.

 

And he reckoned the details were included in an attempt to "paint Ally in a poor light".

 

He said: "I have no idea why that information was included in the announcement to the Stock Exchange as I am not convinced that it would have a material impact on the share price.

 

"My guess is they would want to make that news to distract attention away from the way the club is being run and paint Ally in a poor light.

 

"In my view that will fail. The guy is a legend as a player. Yes, there are mixed views on him as a manager. But he has stuck with us through thick and thin.

 

"My personal opinion is this is designed to deflect attention away from the real issue that is at stake here - the incompetence of the board."

 

 

I wish someone would explain to me in detail how some people are entitled to contractual pay offs for bad performance while others are not?

[pmu 0]

I just wish all these Ally allies out there would get it. Off course he is entitled to every contractual penny he can squeeze out of us. Just don't expect him to be seen as anything other than a **** like the rest of them.

[Bluedell 5,624]

Everyone is entitled to a pay-off if they are being asked to leave unless they are being dismissed in line with the procedures of the company which would normally be a verbal warning, 2 written warnings and then a dismissal. They would need to have the issues clearly explained so that they can be addressed.

 

This is often not that easy and therefore in the case of Rangers there have been mutually agreed pay-offs. Ally is legally entitled to his pay-off if he is asked to leave. He would probably be put on gardening leave if they can't reached an agreement on a reduced settlement.

[Rangersitis 0]

Everyone is entitled to the terms of their contract, and that is something that shouldn't even be up for debate. Those who agree to these mammoth pay off clauses should be held accountable and made to explain just why they were inserted and how they were in the best interests of the company that they represent.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

We should sue him for crimes against football.

[Frankie 8,562]

Everyone is entitled to a pay-off if they are being asked to leave unless they are being dismissed in line with the procedures of the company which would normally be a verbal warning, 2 written warnings and then a dismissal. They would need to have the issues clearly explained so that they can be addressed.

 

This is often not that easy and therefore in the case of Rangers there have been mutually agreed pay-offs. Ally is legally entitled to his pay-off if he is asked to leave. He would probably be put on gardening leave if they can't reached an agreement on a reduced settlement.

 

Sure but what puzzles me is when the UoF criticise person A for receiving a pay off but urge club to ensure person B does?

 

It's hardly consistent.

[andy steel 0]

I wish someone would explain to me in detail how some people are entitled to contractual pay offs for bad performance while others are not?

 

I'll have a go, but I fear detail may be lacking.

 

It's about input vs extraction. When, say, Brian Stockbridge wandered along, got a juicy contract, acted like a pillock and was then bonusized to leave, that was wrong because he got out so very much more than he put in.

 

When Graham Wallace waddled in, splashed around rather aimlessly for several months then was bonusized to leave, that was wrong because he had achieved virtually nothing and absolutely nothing of any substance.

 

When Ally McCoist wandered in, became our record scorer, club icon, hero to millions, lifebelt onto whom many grabbed, right rubbish manager, then resigned, it's not so wrong that he is recompensed because he put in more than he took out. I confess it's hard to justify given quite how bad his teams have played but it would be beyond satire to rather meekly accept repeated pay outs to non-entities then get hyper about one to a pillar of the club.

 

Ideally I would prefer salary and glory to be the rewards without payoffs but that's the real world, the world of business many have pointed to when disparaging Ally, having it both ways as usual: we're a business! Except when it doesn't suit us! Then we're Mes Que en Club!

 

A Club! What a joke. 'Clubs' are formed by like minded people, friends, colleague,s who get together through a mutual interest. In the rewriting of history that seeks to portray McCoist as venal, though, people thronged Edmiston Drive of a gameday, drawn not by Baxter, MacDonald, McLean or Cooper, but by an exciting brand of business which drove the club to the top. Until unfairly banned by the SFA, 'Hullo! Hullo! We are the Balance Boys' was often heard booming out from Ibrox.

 

Having ploughed dispiritedly through month after month of this, we can put forward the syllogism that not only are Rangers not more than a club, nor not even no more than a club, it's not even a club.

[Frankie 8,562]

I'll have a go, but I fear detail may be lacking.

 

It's about input vs extraction. When, say, Brian Stockbridge wandered along, got a juicy contract, acted like a pillock and was then bonusized to leave, that was wrong because he got out so very much more than he put in.

 

When Graham Wallace waddled in, splashed around rather aimlessly for several months then was bonusized to leave, that was wrong because he had achieved virtually nothing and absolutely nothing of any substance.

 

When Ally McCoist wandered in, became our record scorer, club icon, hero to millions, lifebelt onto whom many grabbed, right rubbish manager, then resigned, it's not so wrong that he is recompensed because he put in more than he took out. I confess it's hard to justify given quite how bad his teams have played but it would be beyond satire to rather meekly accept repeated pay outs to non-entities then get hyper about one to a pillar of the club.

 

Ideally I would prefer salary and glory to be the rewards without payoffs but that's the real world, the world of business many have pointed to when disparaging Ally, having it both ways as usual: we're a business! Except when it doesn't suit us! Then we're Mes Que en Club!

 

A Club! What a joke. 'Clubs' are formed by like minded people, friends, colleague,s who get together through a mutual interest. In the rewriting of history that seeks to portray McCoist as venal, though, people thronged Edmiston Drive of a gameday, drawn not by Baxter, MacDonald, McLean or Cooper, but by an exciting brand of business which drove the club to the top. Until unfairly banned by the SFA, 'Hullo! Hullo! We are the Balance Boys' was often heard booming out from Ibrox.

 

Having ploughed dispiritedly through month after month of this, we can put forward the syllogism that not only are Rangers not more than a club, nor not even no more than a club, it's not even a club.

 

See I can buy the argument that his contribution has been better than others.

 

However, I still don't think he should be taking any pay off when the club is struggling and/or he failed as manager?

 

Yes, he may be entitled to it but so were others so it doesn't sit well with me to complain about Stockers et al then look the other way for Ally.

[Thinker 887]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/requisitioner-says-ally-mccoist-deserves-full-pay-off-at-rangers-192073n.114667550

 

 

 

I wish someone would explain to me in detail how some people are entitled to contractual pay offs for bad performance while others are not?

 

I suppose (and maybe I'm clutching at straws) the difference would be that folks like Stockbridge negotiated their contract through cronies, none of whom ever had the slightest intention of serving Rangers' best interests. McCoist accepted the contract he was offered and (I believe) despite failing pretty miserably has genuinely tried to do his best. We also have to ask; Why is the club struggling to fulfil Ally's contract? We should be able to afford it, but can't only because of the way the afore-mentioned cronies have mis-managed the business side of things.

 

I think Ally needs to explain himself though - whether or not he's been selfish depends on what he's going to do with his pay-off. For all I know his intention might be to split it amongst the other employees who were made redundant with minimum recompense.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Thinker

[Frankie 8,562]

I suppose (and maybe I'm clutching at straws) the difference would be that folks like Stockbridge negotiated their contract through cronies, none of whom ever had the slightest intention of serving Rangers' best interests. McCoist accepted the contract he was offered and (I believe) despite failing pretty miserably has genuinely tried to do his best.

 

I think Ally needs to explain himself though - whether or not he's been selfish depends on what he's going to do with his pay-off. For all I know his intention might be to split it amongst the other employees who were made redundant with minimum recompense.

 

Agreed.

 

I'm of the opinion Ally would use the money sensibly - along with the penny shares he owns - but so far has decided against detailing this.

 

Clearly there's more to this.