Warburton, Weir & McParland Statement

[Creampuff 22,628]

9 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

How? do you mean recorded conversation?

No, I mean that we evidence that we had a conversation, and that the results of it was recorded contemporaneously.

Realistically we can't prove our story beyond reasonable doubt, but we don't have to. We just need our story to be more believable than theirs. If we can produce, I don't know, internal correspondence between the board regarding the matter; including the minutes of the board meetings to discuss; then we're in a very strong position.

[gruggs 221]

You just know this is going to end up costing us when it gets to court.

I imagine one of the simpler questions from the LMA will be..can you please provide us copies of the resignation letters?

The truth obviously sits somewhere in the middle where both parties weren't happy and agreed that they would split ways. My take on it is that Rangers agreed to waive compensation and the managevent team would carry on duties until they found something (forest). There has then been some maneuvering by the agent after the initial deal was struck and DK has taken a chance to get rid just now for free ahead of the summer, nothing will have been formally documented and we will likely get screwed once it goes to court. (But in the mean time looks good for the board)

 

Just my 2p.

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

4 minutes ago, Frank Harrison said:

It wasn't Forest who tried to negotiate the compensation it was their agent. There's been nothing to say Forest had any contact with our board but every story says Warburton had talks with them. That would mean they went directly to him without Rangers say so, that's not allowed and they aren't going to admit to doing it.

Even last week that's all it is though n still just now "stories " only thing we all know is ,that because of different statements from the board and the three of them .Someone is telling porkies oh aye and for some reason Mr King has also told us that he's spent 18million 

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

Whoever is looking at their case from a compensation (and maybe even including damages) point of view - their lawyers, the LMA, Rangers' execs, Rangers lawyers, independent deciders on a tribunal or in a court) the starting points ares bound to be the basic facts.   Fundamental to that is establishing whether resignations were in fact properly tendered by or on behalf of the 3.    Clearly King, the MD and the Board think they were.  Clearly Warburton, on taking legal advice, does not agree.    If it emerges as an established fact that validly tendered resignations were not tendered then I'd be amazed if claims for compensation for wrongful dismissal were not awarded or a settlement sum agreed. 

Add to that any damages they are successful in claiming on account of King's florid description of Warburton's reaction to being questioned and the conclusion that (in King's experience) a more experienced manager would not have reacted that way.....which punches at Warburton's reputation and could be argued to damage his reputation and his chances of getting another football manager job......and I guess their legal team would look to add a damages claim to wrongful dismissal.   

Clearly the parties are setting out their stalls and preparing to engage in battle.   

The 3 are not going to go away quietly.  Looks like there will be a claim - maybe a very substantial claim - from their legal reps.   Will King want this trailed through the tribunal or court processes?   I can't see it.   The reputational damage to King personally and the Club may - imo - be too high a price for him to pay.     An out or court settlement would be likely to be made to bring the matter to a swift conclusion.   Unless of course King, the MD and the Board took legal advice and heeded it before coming out with the announcement that the 3 had resigned.   If they just used whatever was being said in meetings with the agent as being an opportunity to construe that resignations were actually being tabled and open for immediate acceptance then they may be on very thin ice.   But then maybe King, the MD and the Board were savvy enough to check their ground with their legal team before making an announcement.   I'm not betting on that.

Interestingly King, despite his curious use of legalese 'for avoidance of doubt' bit in his 2nd statement, does not mention the Board had taken all necessary professional (including legal) advice before deciding to accept what they interpreted as resignations.   Seems they clearly saw it as clear cut tendering of resignations - not 'we might resign if terms could be changed' but 'we resign'.  

A lot like the Barton case, the impression I have from the King statement is there is potential for a real mess here, and potential for some biggish compensation fees to be paid to the 3.    There does not seem to be much doubt from the King statement that the Board was dissatisfied with Warburton and the other 2 and its possible they may have been sacked anyway before much longer.   

Just as relevantly if the Board and the MD has made a mess of the removal of the 3 and a big compensation fee is paid to them then King, the Board and the MD may deserve all the criticism they get.    No wonder there may be a delay until Summer before a new manager and DOF is appointed.   The 'circumstances' referred to by Robertson in his interview yesterday were not defined, and the interviewer did not press him on what these circumstances might be.   One of them might well be waiting until any claim for compensation is settled.   Otherwise they won't know what they can afford to budget for in paying for a new manager and DOF.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,123]

If an agent approached the club and asked it to release the clients without the club receiving contractual compensation from any interested club, then I think the board have every right to believe that they weren't 100% committed to the club.

The club were prepared to do this but then the agent tries to go back on the deal

If Warburton has a beef it should be with his agent.

[To Be A Ranger 4,032]

19 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

More money pissed down the drain because the useless fuckers at the top can't get their shit in check.

I don't get this point. Would you rather they had stayed. If we had sacked them they would still have been entitled to a payout. If the board win their case there's no payment. Nobody's pissing any money away.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 64,426]

2 minutes ago, To Be A Ranger said:

I don't get this point. Would you rather they had stayed. If we had sacked them they would still have been entitled to a payout. If the board win their case there's no payment. Nobody's pissing any money away.

sshhhh that doesn't fit the anti board agenda

[jackrfc95 4,255]

This will rumble on for a while then be settled out of court.

I have absolutely no doubts about that.

[plumbGER 24,518]

You will learn from it Mark.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

3 minutes ago, To Be A Ranger said:

I don't get this point. Would you rather they had stayed. If we had sacked them they would still have been entitled to a payout. If the board win their case there's no payment. Nobody's pissing any money away.

To be honest, if the board have fucked this it will cost us more.

Firstly if Warburton and co win, we will have to pay both ours and theirs legal costs.

Secondly, there could be compensation over and above the cost it would be to pay off their contracts.

Finally, if we had put them on gardening leave like we did with mccoist. We would only have to pay their wages until they found a new job. Warburton is far more likely to find new work than McCoist so doubt it would have taken covering their wages beyond the end of the season.

Not saying that I think the board have done the wrong thing. Have no idea of the details, but if they have played it wrong, it will cost us. If they have played it right then they have pulled a rabbit out the magic hat.

[Bertent 2,081]

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

To be honest, if the board have fucked this it will cost us more.

Firstly if Warburton and co win, we will have to pay both ours and theirs legal costs.

Secondly, there could be compensation over and above the cost it would be to pay off their contracts.

Finally, if we had put them on gardening leave like we did with mccoist. We would only have to pay their wages until they found a new job. Warburton is far more likely to find new work than McCoist so doubt it would have taken covering their wages beyond the end of the season.

Not saying that I think the board have done the wrong thing. Have no idea of the details, but if they have played it wrong, it will cost us. If they have played it right then they have pulled a rabbit out the magic hat.

shocked to say i agree with this.

right to clear them out

only time will tell if it was the better method

[Bighouse 1,012]

My guess is the truth in this situation lies somewhere in the middle so I can see a settlement and non disclosure agreement coming.

As usual it's the loyal fans who suffer the most.

[DerKlos 161]

1 hour ago, Barbarrosa said:

Been saying for a while it's just a short term attempt at saving wages.

King is no doubt hoping that by the time compensation is due, then the season ticket renewal money will be in.

I wonder if we'll hear King tell us in the summer that we can't afford the shiny new modern robust set up, because we've had to pay MW etc.

this sounds worryingly accurate.

[The Beast 9,182]

22 minutes ago, Frank Harrison said:

You know for a fact they didn't formally resign I take it?

Aye there was unnecessary things in the statement but it gave us a detailed version of what happened. If you want to conveniently ignore that fire away.

I know that if there was a formal resignation then the board would have given details of that. They didn't.

[STEPPS BOY 73,790]

51 minutes ago, Lance1697 said:

This is screaming court case

Us eventually losing and have to pay compensation 

Is it, aye.

 

1697 you say..

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

6 minutes ago, Creampuff said:

No, I mean that we evidence that we had a conversation, and that the results of it was recorded contemporaneously.

Realistically we can't prove our story beyond reasonable doubt, but we don't have to. We just need our story to be more believable than theirs. If we can produce, I don't know, internal correspondence between the board regarding the matter; including the minutes of the board meetings to discuss; then we're in a very strong position.

Don't know about you but over the course of a long career dealing in commercial, financial and even some HR matters there were plenty of times where meetings were minuted and one side is happy that the minutes record what they said (or meant to say!) only for the other parties to the same meeting to dispute some points - especially if they were controversial points.    I don't know what written reports of the meeting the Board and King were relying on, but if the agent and his clients were not given the opportunity to agree that the minutes / notes of the outcome of the meeting were full, complete and accurate in all material respects then it seems to be things boil to interpretations of 'he said' and 'no I didn't' types of argument.

What is inescapable, imo, is that an offer to resign is a pretty fundamental act.    3 offers to resign even more so.   3 offers by the top 3 people in the management team make it even more potentially controversial.   And adds to the need to be on absolutely solid, no mistaking the meaning, grounds of understanding that what is on the table are 3 actual resignations (not 'we might resign' but actual resignation offers) .......and they verify that understanding with the agent (and personally I'd want that validated by the 3 individuals themselves to be doubly sure) and then confirm the same in writing with the agent. 

I'm still pretty far from convinced that this has been handled well by the Club.   And not for the first time in recent times.

[standup 829]

The mhedia will be delighted.Guaranteed news for years to come.

[The Specky Forum Organiser 64,426]

As I said I'm no fan of this board but anyone who thinks they've stopped someone from performing their duties and released a statement as detailed as that to the public without being 100% sure they're legally in the right is mad.

If they have they will be about as credible as Craig Whyte.

[The Dude 20,026]

Few points from that:

There's no denial from Warburton they had spoken with Forest.

Theres no denial from Warburton that his agent tried to get them out of Ibrox with no compensation.

No denial he leaked info to the Record

No denial of meetings taking place between his agent and the club.

 

[STEPPS BOY 73,790]

Fuck Warburton, Weir and Envelopes.

 

If it goes to court there's nothing to worry about..

 

I've seen their attempts at defending since 2015..

[KeyserSoze 14,520]

I find it difficult to believe that our board would put a statement out with some difinitive details without some truth.  

[loyal 136]

If King has  fabricated  the whole thing up than He's position will be untenable to remain .

I just can't see anyone in any field of job leaving without securing contracts for their new positions .

regardless of how poorly an individual performs these day's  you have to do it by the book

I think King   thought he was being smart but looks like  manager association will demand  an  inquiry

not only compensation on the cards but legal fees and will be a  fuckin huge embarrassment  .

 

[dougie76 15,356]

1 hour ago, The Godfather said:

As someone who criticises the board at length even i'd be stunned if we took action like this without hard evidence that a resignation had been offered. 

It would make no sense to go through this if the end result was media embrassment and a big sum to pay at the end of it. Even this board are not as daft as that

Think Kings just chanced his arm to be honest.

[The Godfather 71,714]

Just now, dougie76 said:

Think Kings just chanced his arm to be honest.

I dont know why he'd risk that when if found out to be lying he'd lose millions and get hounded out the club by the fans and media.

Bit of a stretch for me tbh. 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just to add some supposition to this. I was to contact the club last week about going up to Auchenhowie for a sit-down interview with Graeme Murty & Craig Mulholland. I'd originally spoke with both of them before the Aberdeen U20s game two weeks ago and both were very keen to do it and when I spoke with the press office they were more than happy to organise it. When I contacted them last week to set a day and time there was complete radio silence on anything involving Murty. They responded to other requests and emails but anything about Murty was blanked from as early as last Wednesday. 

Obviously it's hardly categoric proof of anything BUT it seems odd the club would be silent on Murty from the middle of last week if something wasn't going on behind the scenes...