Rangersitis

I'm sticking with what Twitter says.

He confirmed that the particular contractual bonus you refer to had been removed.

There were relatively few dissenters when the club was put into the hands of the speculators. Now they all wonder why it's all about money.

Yes, that has been established, but what evidence do you have that Brian Stockbridge is not eligible to receive a bonus payment?

Why not wait for another share issue and get them for half of that, with his money going to the club and not to city investors on the make? Seems like a win-win for everyone.

That wasn't what I asked, but thanks anyway.

You have evidence that Stockbridge doesn't have any rights to a bonus?

No, why would I?

How do you know that there are no bonus schemes for board members?

Richard Hughes?

To all those in agreement with the OP, a question: Would you be willing to do likewise to help out your employer?

Given the highlighted part, that seems to be a rather contradictory statement.

I don't, no, but neither do I have comparitive figures for other clubs to say that the 30% figure is used because of any perceived agenda. Unless people have access to the payroll, it's pretty much guesswork anyway.

Unless those saying that it is done to suit an agenda, actually have an agenda of their own. Not saying that is the case with anyone on this thread.