Warburton, Weir & McParland Statement

[The Specky Forum Organiser 64,478]

3 minutes ago, loyal said:

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  .

 

The LMA are an English organisation, they have as much right to call an enquiry as you or I.

[Valance1690 3,821]

11 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

Is it, aye.

 

1697 you say..

It is aye....

Not sure what 1697 is supposed to be in reference of.....it's literally 4 random numbers I typed after an alias I created online years ago and i've stuck with it ever since.....in all future online usernames, I used 1697 

[nelsonRFC82 305]

Unfortunately I am really struggling to believe the board have got this right to be honest.

I think fundamentally, MW & co were looking for a way out and the links to Forest are probably true. Therefore I believe we are better rid of them and to be looking elsewhere. However, in terms of the legal position, of course it is all conjecture because we do not know the ins & outs of what was formally discussed, negotiated and/or agreed. Why I fear the board have cocked up goes back to the fact this all came out publicly in a pish-poorly worded statement on a Friday night...so poor that, in conjunction with the website crashing, lead many to debate whether we had actually been hacked rather than it being an official announcement...no press conference etc. It was genuine and therefore obviously a rushed & amateur effort.

It also referred to MW being informed "accordingly in writing" or words to those effect. It is simply not a concrete statement that shows all parties are in agreement (which you would expect under a "normal" resignation).

Then King's statement the next day, where he attacks both MWs character & managerial ability (more than once referring to his lack of experience impacting his judgement), while it was clear a court case may be looming this was at best unwise and at worst going to cost us in damages.

Something else which has never actually been explained...why were we willing to let them leave without compensation that we would be contractually due (i.e. the alleged offer made by their agent)? Are we so well off that we will actively release assets free of charge to other clubs? The only reason I can fathom for that is the club were actively looking to get rid anyway?

[dougie76 15,356]

4 minutes ago, The Godfather said:

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. 

He has got away with far worse mate.

[loyal 136]

26 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.

probably the legal fees will dwarf the compensation Warburton Weir and Mcparland could have been entitled to. 

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

12 minutes ago, dougie76 said:

He has got away with far worse mate.

N paid the fines for it 

Makes ye wonder 

[dougie76 15,356]

Just now, BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT said:

N paid the finest for it 

Makes ye wonder 

He is a fucking snake and should be nowhere near our club.

[Imodium 410]

It's another court case we will lose unless the resignation was in writing. I think a payoff will come soon enough, probably when the ST money is in....

[STEPPS BOY 73,805]

Do folk genuinely think that every decision at Rangers is made purely by Dave king without consultation with the other board members?

 

[Valance1690 3,821]

Just now, nelsonRFC82 said:

Unfortunately I am really struggling to believe the board have got this right to be honest.

I think fundamentally, MW & co were looking for a way out and the links to Forest are probably true. Therefore I believe we are better rid of them and to be looking elsewhere. However, in terms of the legal position, of course it is all conjecture because we do not know the ins & outs of what was formally discussed, negotiated and/or agreed. Why I fear the board have cocked up goes back to the fact this all came out publicly in a pish-poorly worded statement on a Friday night...so poor that, in conjunction with the website crashing, lead many to debate whether we had actually been hacked rather than it being an official announcement...no press conference etc. It was genuine and therefore obviously a rushed & amateur effort.

It also referred to MW being informed "accordingly in writing" or words to those effect. It is simply not a concrete statement that shows all parties are in agreement (which you would expect under a "normal" resignation).

Then King's statement the next day, where he attacks both MWs character & managerial ability (more than once referring to his lack of experience impacting his judgement), while it was clear a court case may be looming this was at best unwise and at worst going to cost us in damages.

Something else which has never actually been explained...why were we willing to let them leave without compensation that we would be contractually due (i.e. the alleged offer made by their agent)? Are we so well off that we will actively release assets free of charge to other clubs? The only reason I can fathom for that is the club were actively looking to get rid anyway?

Agree with most of what you've written.

Only thing I have to add is the compensation portion...read somewhere that clauses were put into each of their contracts at the end of last season allowing them to move onto another club and Rangers would waive comenstation, this was something the board allowed them to have, assuming that if over the next few years a club came knocking they could leave.

Possibly something else to sweeten the deal as the board were obviously happy enough to give them new contracts so this would be a bonus of such.

This means the 3 of them look a much better deal than say Nottingham Forrest having to to pay us 1 million to take them.

Whether or not Warburton's agents asked for this to be activated which has then resulted in all this or the board have decided to take it upon themselves and are now going to have to spin a web of lies and hearsay....is yet to be seen.

I really really don't see Warburton/Weir or McParland going into a room/conference call and saying I'm tendering my resignation, we're in talks with another club....

Just doesn't make sense...unless they 100% knew they have another job lined up.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,123]

1 minute ago, STEPPS BOY said:

Do folk genuinely think that every decision at Rangers is made purely by Dave king without consultation with the other board members?

 

Or lawyers, if they haven't taken legal advice then they're bigger numpty's than I give them credit for.

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

Just now, dougie76 said:

He is a fucking snake and should be nowhere near our club.

Tbh I still think he's back to try N recoup the millions hes not seen since the David Murray era 

Also think the board have seen an opportunity to make it look like they're siding with the fans by no being happy withe the management team n saw an opportunity to get rid although I can see this backfiring for them 

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

10 minutes ago, The Dude said:

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.

 

My guess is that Warburton's statement is issued under legal advisement and deliberately narrow in its focus ('we did not resign') and I guess they view these matters as secondary to their fundamental point that up until Friday when the Rangers statement of resignation was issued they were in employment but as soon as that statement was issued (without prior warning or opportunity to check facts) they found themselves out of work.  In their view presumably wrongful dismissal.    The fact that its silent on these points does not necessarily mean they are a given from his (or his lawyer's) pov.  

That's not an intended defence of Warburton or his agent - I was far from convinced he was the right manager for the Club - its just an observation that silence from Warburton on these points does not mean he would accept them as fact or as full, complete and accurate.  

Warburton's note does appear to me to be issued under legal advisement.  Which is understandable.   I do wonder however whether King's scatter-gun 2nd statement had been given the benefit of legal team blessing before it was issued. 

[BridgeIsBlue 66,604]

I honestly hand on heart don't care about this I'm just glad they're gone.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

4 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

Do folk genuinely think that every decision at Rangers is made purely by Dave king without consultation with the other board members?

 

No. DK is RIFC board he'd have to talk to RFC board presumably before any agreement. So there should be correspondence.

[nelsonRFC82 305]

Another thing, having re-read King's statement the offer to resign was received on Monday and "the Board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated", Yet MW was still taking training and even gave a press conference on the Friday ahead of the Morton game.

I know the claim is the agent then tried to renegotiate the terms etc. but even if he did this that wouldn't explain why we allowed MW to clearly and publicly continue his managerial duties after his "employment was immediately terminated"?

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said:

My guess is that Warburton's statement is issued under legal advisement and deliberately narrow in its focus ('we did not resign') and I guess they view these matters as secondary to their fundamental point that up until Friday when the Rangers statement of resignation was issued they were in employment but as soon as that statement was issued (without prior warning or opportunity to check facts) they found themselves out of work.  In their view presumably wrongful dismissal.    The fact that its silent on these points does not necessarily mean they are a given from his (or his lawyer's) pov.  

That's not an intended defence of Warburton or his agent - I was far from convinced he was the right manager for the Club - its just an observation that silence from Warburton on these points does not mean he would accept them as fact or as full, complete and accurate.  

Warburton's note does appear to me to be issued under legal advisement.  Which is understandable.   I do wonder however whether King's scatter-gun 2nd statement had been given the benefit of legal team blessing before it was issued. 

I'd think that, when King contends their agent offered their resignation following the meeting on Monday, denial of such meeting taking place would go a long way to pulling holes in King's story. If his agent DID have a meeting with Stewart Robertson on Monday, why?

[dougie76 15,356]

7 minutes ago, STEPPS BOY said:

Do folk genuinely think that every decision at Rangers is made purely by Dave king without consultation with the other board members?

 

Of course not but we all know he pulls the strings.

[Valance1690 3,821]

1 minute ago, nelsonRFC82 said:

Another thing, having re-read King's statement the offer to resign was received on Monday and "the Board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated", Yet MW was still taking training and even gave a press conference on the Friday ahead of the Morton game.

I know the claim is the agent then tried to renegotiate the terms etc. but even if he did this that wouldn't explain why we allowed MW to clearly and publicly continue his managerial duties after his "employment was immediately terminated"?

This is the thing i've seen everywhere.

As it stands there's been absolutely no explanation for the line "The board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated"

That'll come back and bite Dave King on the arse

[gruggs 221]

39 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.

Legal fees, potential for damages as mentioned, no opportunity to agree a settlement.

My understanding is that the board agreed to keep them in a job (likely till the summer) and waive compensation on the basis that Warburton agreed to leave and didn't want compensation. That was very likely the deal and looks like the board have gone back on it, potentially for good reason if something changed in the deal.

[nelsonRFC82 305]

5 minutes ago, Lance1697 said:

Agree with most of what you've written.

Only thing I have to add is the compensation portion...read somewhere that clauses were put into each of their contracts at the end of last season allowing them to move onto another club and Rangers would waive comenstation, this was something the board allowed them to have, assuming that if over the next few years a club came knocking they could leave.

Possibly something else to sweeten the deal as the board were obviously happy enough to give them new contracts so this would be a bonus of such.

This means the 3 of them look a much better deal than say Nottingham Forrest having to to pay us 1 million to take them.

Whether or not Warburton's agents asked for this to be activated which has then resulted in all this or the board have decided to take it upon themselves and are now going to have to spin a web of lies and hearsay....is yet to be seen.

I really really don't see Warburton/Weir or McParland going into a room/conference call and saying I'm tendering my resignation, we're in talks with another club....

Just doesn't make sense...unless they 100% knew they have another job lined up.

You may be right with regards the compensation term, really don't know but then if that was the case and it was a contractual obligation why would their agent have to negotiate this issue with them last week?

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, nelsonRFC82 said:

Another thing, having re-read King's statement the offer to resign was received on Monday and "the Board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated", Yet MW was still taking training and even gave a press conference on the Friday ahead of the Morton game.

I know the claim is the agent then tried to renegotiate the terms etc. but even if he did this that wouldn't explain why we allowed MW to clearly and publicly continue his managerial duties after his "employment was immediately terminated"?

Give him a farewell and allow the club to draw up legal paperwork waiving either parties claim to contractually-obliged compensation.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,123]

4 minutes ago, Lance1697 said:

Agree with most of what you've written.

Only thing I have to add is the compensation portion...read somewhere that clauses were put into each of their contracts at the end of last season allowing them to move onto another club and Rangers would waive comenstation, this was something the board allowed them to have, assuming that if over the next few years a club came knocking they could leave.

Possibly something else to sweeten the deal as the board were obviously happy enough to give them new contracts so this would be a bonus of such.

This means the 3 of them look a much better deal than say Nottingham Forrest having to to pay us 1 million to take them.

Whether or not Warburton's agents asked for this to be activated which has then resulted in all this or the board have decided to take it upon themselves and are now going to have to spin a web of lies and hearsay....is yet to be seen.

I really really don't see Warburton/Weir or McParland going into a room/conference call and saying I'm tendering my resignation, we're in talks with another club....

Just doesn't make sense...unless they 100% knew they have another job lined up.

Why would the board give them a better contract and include a waver to compensation? I know a fair few think they're  numptys, but really, it's like letting a player on a contract leave for fuck all.

[dougie76 15,356]

3 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

I honestly hand on heart don't care about this I'm just glad they're gone.

We all are but this isn't how you go about it.

[BridgeIsBlue 66,604]

Just now, dougie76 said:

We all are but this isn't how you go about it.

Just the random nature of football mate.