the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Not in the case of Leach; his position is untenable. Llambias will be voted off and it's not clear if Ashley can or will want to reinstate him on the Board. He may have a short term future on the Board in a transition period. His position as CEO is another matter. If KingCo/T3B are in control of the Boardroom as seems likely then I'm not sure if it is the wisest move or cost effective to replace him unless they have a cheaper and better qualified alternative. Keeping him as ceo would cost millions. We didn't boycott to force this change just to go back and pay the wages of ashleys rapists. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Which in all likelihood result in a successful claim of constructive dismissal. They would cite their job spec and then show they were being demeaned by performing tasks outwith that job spec. Because you know we wont want them carrying on the task they are presently employed for. Which is why they should be put on gardening leave and stopped from working elsewhere but not forced out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Which in all likelihood result in a successful claim of constructive dismissal. They would cite their job spec and then show they were being demeaned by performing tasks outwith that job spec. Because you know we wont want them carrying on the task they are presently employed for.dont think they would have a case. shareholdes have deemed their efforts towards their contractual obligations were detrimental to the companies future.The new ceo would have no option but to remove them from usual activities and the financial position of the company ties the new ceo's hands. A payoff would significantly harm the companies financial well being placing the ceo in the crosshairs of shareholders ,who would accuse him of failing in his duties. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think any employee that demands full contract payment that we can't get out of should only be given so by continuing to pay them a their due salary while on gardening leave. There is no way we should pay them and allow them to walk into another job. That includes the playing staff. At the same time every single misdemeanour should be investigated, punished if guilty (docked pay?), and publicised where the law allows. For these two, an investigation could lead to them being sacked without payoff. I realise previously this has not been done in return for a gagging clause to stop the employee from speaking out against the employers, but for these two, any criticism can only be against themselves and their cronies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Not in the case of Leach; his position is untenable. Llambias will be voted off and it's not clear if Ashley can or will want to reinstate him on the Board. He may have a short term future on the Board in a transition period. His position as CEO is another matter. If KingCo/T3B are in control of the Boardroom as seems likely then I'm not sure if it is the wisest move or cost effective to replace him unless they have a cheaper and better qualified alternative. 1. In what way is it wise to keep someone as a CEO when the shareholders of the company have shown a lack of faith in his ability? 2. How can he act in his position when he has been removed as a director? He would be a lame duck, with no credibility, either internally or the outside world. 3. In what way is it wise to keep someone as CEO whose priority is SD and Rangers? 4. In what way is it wise to keep someone in place that would destroy much of the goodwill that has been built up with the support? There's no way he can stay in place. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Which is why they should be put on gardening leave and stopped from working elsewhere but not forced out. I would prefer we negotiated a settlement that resulted in us paying less than the contracted amount. I understand your position but I am not in the "cutting off noses to spite out face" camp. If we can get shot of them for less than their contracted amount, without a lengthly, costly court case, then I'm all for it. IF it was an option between paying out full contract or gardening leave then I agree - but I would like to think both sides would be able to negotiate a reduced pay off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 1. In what way is it wise to keep someone as a CEO when the shareholders of the company have shown a lack of faith in his ability? 2. How can he act in his position when he has been removed as a director? He would be a lame duck, with no credibility, either internally or the outside world. 3. In what way is it wise to keep someone as CEO whose priority is SD and Rangers? 4. In what way is it wise to keep someone in place that would destroy much of the goodwill that has been built up with the support? There's no way he can stay in place. All that may well be true, BD, but equally it may not be easy to dismiss him for these reasons. I have some sympathy with #34 but #35 may be a more practical solution. That said Mr King may place expediency above all else. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 dont think they would have a case. shareholdes have deemed their efforts towards their contractual obligations were detrimental to the companies future.The new ceo would have no option but to remove them from usual activities and the financial position of the company ties the new ceo's hands. A payoff would significantly harm the companies financial well being placing the ceo in the crosshairs of shareholders ,who would accuse him of failing in his duties. It makes no difference if shareholders deem their efforts towards their contractual efforts detrimental to the companies future - what the shareholders say wouldn't be grounds for gross misconduct or dismissal. Shareholders change their Boards all the time, that doesn't mean that you can simply sack the incumbent on the basis that "we didn't like what you did". IF King were to appoint a new CEO "to remove them from usual activities" - rather than being grounds for getting rid of Llambias that would actually STRENGTHEN his case for constructive dismissal. You cannot sack someone or get rid of them without financial compensation "just because the financial position of the company ties the new CEO's hands". Llambias & Ashley would have an absolute field day with that. The financial strength of a company has never been grounds for dismissal without compensation. If the Club were to use your suggested method of removing Llambias & Leach I have little doubt that the Club would be expected to pay not only their contracted benefits package but also more than likely would be expected to pay punitive damages too (again, though, I am no lawyer). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I think any employee that demands full contract payment that we can't get out of should only be given so by continuing to pay them a their due salary while on gardening leave. There is no way we should pay them and allow them to walk into another job. That includes the playing staff. At the same time every single misdemeanour should be investigated, punished if guilty (docked pay?), and publicised where the law allows. For these two, an investigation could lead to them being sacked without payoff. I realise previously this has not been done in return for a gagging clause to stop the employee from speaking out against the employers, but for these two, any criticism can only be against themselves and their cronies. Agreed on gardening leave rather than pay off and free to get another job elsewhere. Make them suffer the (well paid) embarrassment of having to be on gardening leave. Docking pay would, I imagine, only be covered by playing contracts - I would have thought it highly unlikely that CEO/CFO positions can be docked salaries - more likely they would go through the "warning" process - verbal, written, written (or whatever derivation it is these days). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 All that may well be true, BD, but equally it may not be easy to dismiss him for these reasons. I have some sympathy with #34 but #35 may be a more practical solution. That said Mr King may place expediency above all else. It will be very easy to dismiss him - if King is prepared to pay off his contract 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.