Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rfc52

Second Statement

Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, Four Founding Fathers said:

If that's the case then we should be going after Forest.

Why? Its what we wanted. If he spoke to them he broke the terms of his contract. Yes they should have asked permission but he was wrong engaging with them witbout said permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, CRARFC said:

Fair enough sounds like you are legit ?. Met McCoist a few times and he was a good laugh. Not meaning this in a prickish way but wanted to know what mciness was like as a man more than anything. 

@K.A.I

Seems we've had more than one famous Walter at the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Big Al II said:

Why? Its what we wanted. If he spoke to them he broke the terms of his contract. Yes they should have asked permission but he was wrong engaging with them witbout said permission.

 

Yes, it played well for us this time. It sets a negative precedent, next time it could be a successful manager. They have made a habit of it -

Nottingham Forest manager Brian Clough later said, "we tapped more players than the Severn-Trent water board!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Four Founding Fathers said:

Yes, it played well for us this time. It sets a negative precedent, next time it could be a successful manager. They have made a habit of it -

Nottingham Forest manager Brian Clough later said, "we tapped more players than the Severn-Trent water board!"

What sets a negative precedent...a manager wanted to leave and broke the terms of his contract in doing so? Or was it the fact he wanted to leave, handed in his resignation then changed his mind when the job fell through. 

FFS seriously!

We're not in the early 80's by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Big Al II said:

What sets a negative precedent...a manager wanted to leave and broke the terms of his contract in doing so? Or was it tge fact he wanted to leave, handed in his resignation then changed his mind when the job fell through. 

FFS seriously!

 
 

The fact that we let a little club like Forest come in tap our manager and say nothing sets a bad precedent. 

-Edit. Even when they done us a favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Four Founding Fathers said:

The fact that we let a little club like Forest come in tap our manager and say nothing sets a bad precedent. 

How did we let someone be tapped exactly? Isnt the point its without your permission?

The Dude and Sparkle like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Four Founding Fathers said:

Why did the review rock Warburton so much that he ran to the mhedia? Has he and McParland been hiding something, heard a rumour about his daughter being an agent. She supposedly worked for Key Sports Managment and they were representatives of a third of our signings including Garner. At first, I saw this as another conspiracy crap-fest from the bheggars. Was there truth in it? why was he so defensive about a review?

Yep, his daughter Elisha works as a client manager at key sports management, which represents kiernan, tavernier, waghorn, garner, zelalem, eustace and warburton himself.

What are the chances, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bronzy said:

Yep, his daughter Elisha works as a client manager at key sports management, which represents kiernan, tavernier, waghorn, garner, zelalem, eustace and warburton himself.

What are the chances, eh?

Warburtons or McParlands daughter is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Warburtons or McParlands daughter is that?

Warburton's daughter but McParland has been at it too - seems the majority of players that's not in Warburton's daughter's agency that we've signed are all linked to him being pals with 1/2 particular agents. 

The whole thing stinks. 

I'd like to think that the transfer review that the board put together the other week was exclusively because of this and it's escalated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't lie, I'm disappointed. And embarrassed to have been taken in, I thought he had integrity and ethics, he's just another greedy pig with his nose in the Rangers trough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't the board and management just sit down, have an honest chat and come to a mutual agreement like gentlemen.

I worry this is just going to be another drawn out legal dispute hanging over us, with us most likely spunking millions paying them off. Shambles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, butthole said:

Why couldn't the board and management just sit down, have an honest chat and come to a mutual agreement like gentlemen.

I worry this is just going to be another drawn out legal dispute hanging over us, with us most likely spunking millions paying them off. Shambles. 

Because it would have cost us somewhere in the region of a million quid to sit down and reach an agreement like gentleman,

They 3 tried to get out on their terms, we only facilitated it and stuck to the original agreement.

Fuck them. 

Well done the board - even if it looks like we've stooped to their level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Young Bob said:

 

You are not the public face of an institution. You work for a company who could easily replace you if you resigned. There are no doubt a lot more critical positions in companies that you could work for and if the people who held these positions resigned their notice period would not be enforced.

The Rangers board should have shown Warburton the door as soon as his rep tried to get him out with no compensation.

My mate does a critical job for the company I work for. He resigned in the morning , met his boss and HR in the afternoon but nothing was keeping him so they told him to clear his desk and leave immediately.

 

The board met and decided they should leave which is why they are out.   They wanted to go immediately and are now gone.  They then tried to basically submit a "notice period" which was rejected.

Some people are allowed to work their notice period others aren't.  It usually depends on what job you do whether or not you can work on.  It also depends on attitude.  In our case the financial implications played a significant part (hopefully) in doing this correctly (again hopefully) having taken legal advice.  You wanted them gone on the Monday and I see no problem leaving them insitu until the formalities are completed particularly if it saves us a huge sum of money which we can ill afford to lose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Warbs and Co were quite right to look for another job if the board weren't backing them. We all look for another job when unhappy.

I also think they were being helpful by asking that all compensation agreements be waived - theirs to allow them to leave, and the clubs to save the club a whack of money - fair enough on both sides.

They never actually wrote letters of resignation, or even stated it verbally, and the club thought this was a way of getting rid of them easily and at no cost.

The club issued their statement and the Forest job fell through, Warbs & Co were unaware, and they're now unemployed. 

Now it WILL cost the club money as I believe they've fucked up big time here.

cstamomusa likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloke on FF was saying Warburton and McParland were up to stuff with agents and signings at Brentford and thats why they parted company.

If true Warburton would appear to be the type who would stab his granny in the back for an extra ten bob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JCDBigBear said:

The board met and decided they should leave which is why they are out.   They wanted to go immediately and are now gone.  They then tried to basically submit a "notice period" which was rejected.

Some people are allowed to work their notice period others aren't.  It usually depends on what job you do whether or not you can work on.  It also depends on attitude.  In our case the financial implications played a significant part (hopefully) in doing this correctly (again hopefully) having taken legal advice.  You wanted them gone on the Monday and I see no problem leaving them insitu until the formalities are completed particularly if it saves us a huge sum of money which we can ill afford to lose.

 

Thats my issue with it. It should have been immediate if they wanted immediate release. Rangers didnt ask for this it all came from Warburtons camp. If I was King Warburton would have been told during the board meeting to collect his things and go. No dicking about.

Last few performances have been unacceptable so there was absolutely no benefit to keep Warburton on for todays game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, thebooler said:

I think Warbs and Co were quite right to look for another job if the board weren't backing them. We all look for another job when unhappy.

I also think they were being helpful by asking that all compensation agreements be waived - theirs to allow them to leave, and the clubs to save the club a whack of money - fair enough on both sides.

They never actually wrote letters of resignation, or even stated it verbally, and the club thought this was a way of getting rid of them easily and at no cost.

The club issued their statement and the Forest job fell through, Warbs & Co were unaware, and they're now unemployed. 

Now it WILL cost the club money as I believe they've fucked up big time here.

I don't know what was said between King & Warburton at their last meeting except King's hints.   I suspect Warburton was told his time was limited, that with the fact the fans had turned on him made him put out feelers for another job.   Not sure why the fans are hating on that part as they wanted them gone.  The rest seem like the usual cluster fuck that seems to have surrounded us the last few years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thebooler said:

I think Warbs and Co were quite right to look for another job if the board weren't backing them. We all look for another job when unhappy.

I also think they were being helpful by asking that all compensation agreements be waived - theirs to allow them to leave, and the clubs to save the club a whack of money - fair enough on both sides.

They never actually wrote letters of resignation, or even stated it verbally, and the club thought this was a way of getting rid of them easily and at no cost.

The club issued their statement and the Forest job fell through, Warbs & Co were unaware, and they're now unemployed. 

Now it WILL cost the club money as I believe they've fucked up big time here.

Some conjecture in there Booler. No-one knows what form the "offer" was in or whether there even was one. 

thebooler likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Young Bob said:

Bloke on FF was saying Warburton and McParland were up to stuff with agents and signings at Brentford and thats why they parted company.

If true Warburton would appear to be the type who would stab his granny in the back for an extra ten bob.

 

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/13773841.Burnley__sporting_director_Frank_McParland_not_guilty_of_fraud_and_perjury_charges_as___1m_transfer_row_case_collapses/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...