thebooler 4,509 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Time for your scratcher, old man.Aye, another hour and I'm outa here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry handsome 629 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 The club and Bain should both keep this out of the public domain, let the legal people take care of it and move on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 The club and Bain should both keep this out of the public domain, let the legal people take care of it and move on.It was the club and Whyte who made it public. Bain had little option but to make a statement. I was hoping that would be an end to it but more details are still coming out of Ibrox. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I really don't want to be seeing this nonsense aired in public, the monies Bain received have been well documented and defended by Alistair Johnston. I would prefer some clarification on the season ticket dealings, are they to be sold at a discount to a ticketing agent, if so why, surely we need every penny we can get coming into the club, not going to outside third parties. Although Mr Whyte does have interests in the ticketing business, according to his business portfolio.Some change in 24 hours.Mr Whyte is a new broom, a fresh breeze blowing through Ibrox. I am sure our new owner will provide ample finance, for his extraordinary vision of the future. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry handsome 629 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I dont disagree with what you are saying Casey, i just believe that in the greater interest of the club both parties need to take a step back. I would imagine any decent lawyer will be advising thier client to abstain from comment so as not to prejudice the case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 It was the club and Whyte who made it public. Bain had little option but to make a statement. I was hoping that would be an end to it but more details are still coming out of Ibrox.You say that like it was fact. The club were legally obliged to make a statement on the board changes.Bain initiated legal action the day he was suspended. He had an option not to make a statement. After all, wasn't that his preferred course of action when anyone spoke against Rangers during his tenure.It'd be nice if you took the clubs side for once. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 You say that like it was fact. The club were legally obliged to make a statement on the board changes.Bain initiated legal action the day he was suspended. He had an option not to make a statement. After all, wasn't that his preferred course of action when anyone spoke against Rangers during his tenure.It'd be nice if you took the clubs side for once.You are correct to say the club were legally obliged to make a statement on the board changes. The issue here however is that Bain is officially still on the Board and the Club were NOT legally obliged to tell him in the public press that he was sacked from the Board, and his job.No matter what way anyone spins this, its everybody's human right to be dealt with properly when it affects their career. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 You say that like it was fact. The club were legally obliged to make a statement on the board changes.Bain initiated legal action the day he was suspended. He had an option not to make a statement. After all, wasn't that his preferred course of action when anyone spoke against Rangers during his tenure.It'd be nice if you took the clubs side for once.I am taking the side of the club, as the men in question are still employed by the club. Silly me, I want them to conduct their business in private. When our new owner tells a journalist that Bain and McIntyre have 'no way back' that is not someone trying to keep things in-house.You should try to differentiate between the club and our majority shareholder. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 You are correct to say the club were legally obliged to make a statement on the board changes. The issue here however is that Bain is officially still on the Board and the Club were NOT legally obliged to tell him in the public press that he was sacked from the Board, and his job.No matter what way anyone spins this, its everybody's human right to be dealt with properly when it affects their career.I'm quite sure it was made quite plain to Bain that he wasn't coming back. It would be incredible if he found out in the press, something which every man and his dug already knew.It is also telling that McIntyre has been silent on this. So far. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm quite sure it was made quite plain to Bain that he wasn't coming back. It would be incredible if he found out in the press, something which every man and his dug already knew.It is also telling that McIntyre has been silent on this. So far.Why bother suspending him then?What is telling about McIntyre's silence? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,435 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I hope Peter Watson's resigned from acting for us then Among the posts he holds are:-Official Collaborate, International Labour Organisation, GenevaPast-President of the Society of Solicitor Advocates (1997)President of the Society of Media LawyersChairman, Association of MediatorsMember of the Criminal Rules CouncilMember of the Board of the Sports Law Centre, Anglia UniversityMember of the British Association for Sport & LawMember of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America and the International Bar AssociationVisiting Scholar Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, FloridaHonorary Citizen of Nashville, TennesseeChairman in Scotland of the Reliance group of companiesLegal Advisor to Rangers Football Club plcDeputy Chairman of King & Co Private Bankers, Gibraltar Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 The issue here however is that Bain is officially still on the Board and the Club were NOT legally obliged to tell him in the public press that he was sacked from the Board, and his job.I don't recall Whyte saying that Bain was sacked. Do you have a link?I recall Whyte's comments about whether Bain would be back. That's a different matter. The position of CEO is being made redundant. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I don't recall Whyte saying that Bain was sacked. Do you have a link?I recall Whyte's comments about whether Bain would be back. That's a different matter. The position of CEO is being made redundant.would you like to find out you were being made redundant in the press. its happened to me its not nice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 would you like to find out you were being made redundant in the press. its happened to me its not nice.I have no doubt whatsoever that you absolutely deserved it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I have no doubt whatsoever that you absolutely deserved it. nice Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I don't recall Whyte saying that Bain was sacked. Do you have a link?I recall Whyte's comments about whether Bain would be back. That's a different matter. The position of CEO is being made redundant.Declaring in public that there is no way back for them is tantamount to getting the sack. I'm sure the courts or the tribunal would agree. Note though, this isn't me saying he shouldn't have went, just that it has been handled incorrectly and I reckon it will cost us more now, if the investigation into Bain is not fruitful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 he was sackedDeclaring in public that there is no way back for them is tantamount to getting the sack.So you've stepped back from being "sacked" to merely "tantamount to getting the sack". That's at least some progress.I reckon it will cost us more nowFrom what we've seen to far of Whyte, I reckon his legal advice is slightly more reliable than your reckonings. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 If there turns out to be no irregularities, then Bain will get a nice payoff. One which is larger than if we hadn't went public Boss. Do you agree with that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 If there turns out to be no irregularities, then Bain will get a nice payoff. One which is larger than if we hadn't went public Boss. Do you agree with that?Which is exactly why we can assume the evidence against Bain is so clear cut, and consequently the legal advice to Whyte is so well founded, that Whyte could say what he said.No way would Whyte have said that off the cuff - everything him and his team have done so far has been perfectly orchestrated.Do you think for a second that Whyte was not fully aware of what he was saying and the potential ramifications if he got it wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Which is exactly why we can assume the evidence against Bain is so clear cut, and consequently the legal advice to Whyte is so well founded, that Whyte could say what he said.No way would Whyte have said that off the cuff - everything him and his team have done so far has been perfectly orchestrated.Do you think for a second that Whyte was not fully aware of what he was saying and the potential ramifications if he got it wrong?or possibly he decided a bit of humiliation was worth the extra cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Which is exactly why we can assume the evidence against Bain is so clear cut, and consequently the legal advice to Whyte is so well founded, that Whyte could say what he said.No way would Whyte have said that off the cuff - everything him and his team have done so far has been perfectly orchestrated.Do you think for a second that Whyte was not fully aware of what he was saying and the potential ramifications if he got it wrong?I hope it is clear cut but I wonder then why Bain is fighting back publicly. If he knew he was in trouble he would be better going a different route. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I hope it is clear cut but I wonder then why Bain is fighting back publicly. If he knew he was in trouble he would be better going a different route.I think he will. But he wouldn't want the allegations to remain publicly unchallenged. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I really don't want to be seeing this nonsense aired in public, the monies Bain received have been well documented and defended by Alistair Johnston. I would prefer some clarification on the season ticket dealings, are they to be sold at a discount to a ticketing agent, if so why, surely we need every penny we can get coming into the club, not going to outside third parties. Although Mr Whyte does have interests in the ticketing business, according to his business portfolio.I'm not saying I agree with this if true, but everybody is always on here complaining about the ticket office so why wouldn't our new owner try to improve the service, which in turn will improve sales? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebooler 4,509 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 or possibly he decided a bit of humiliation was worth the extra cash.If this is his motive, then he's obviously prepared for the loss of cash (which he must have if this was his aim) so no worries there then no matter how it pans out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 If this is his motive, then he's obviously prepared for the loss of cash (which he must have if this was his aim) so no worries there then no matter how it pans out.assuming its his cash. then sure why not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts