From IPO document

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Nobody said it was right, we are saying it was in the IPO paperwork for all to read. You will see from my other post that Stockbridge was only talking about his own deal, which is different to Green's.

I agree with you that we all expected Green's bonus being applicable when we reached the SPL or possibly an English league. We are now in the SPFL which he possibly claims is a new league and we were promoted up a division into the new league. I'm not arguing the case for Green merely pointing out facts. People may not like the facts but that doesn't change them.

I will need to check back re Stockbridge answer but the wording is exactly the same on both contracts. Surely you cant argue that Stockbridge got paid for winning division 3 but Green got paid for getting us into "another football league"

They had the same terms so the trigger for their bonus must have been the same.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

I would debate that as the SPFL was a rebranding of an existing product the SPL/SFL, not a move to a new league. I would argue that this clause is actually designed to cover a move to a totally different league as in the English Championship, Div.1 or Div.2 and so on.

You may wish to debate it but I believe you would lose in any law court. The SPL was a different league from the SFL. We are no longer in the SFL and have moved to the SPFL. The SFL has ceased to exist (or will do shortly). We are now in a different league.

[will_1974 204]

No longer CE. Gravy train has ended.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

I will need to check back re Stockbridge answer but the wording is exactly the same on both contracts. Surely you cant argue that Stockbridge got paid for winning division 3 but Green got paid for getting us into "another football league"

They had the same terms so the trigger for their bonus must have been the same.

I am not making up the clauses in the IPO prospectus. The two bonus clauses are different for Green and Stockbridge, very similar but still different. Stockbridge got his bonus for our promotion from SFL3. He stated that he didn't think it correct he received a bonus for on-field success and that any bonus for him should be as a result of his financial acumen on behalf of the club.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

Always find myself agreeing with your posts Bud as you end to furnish facts to back them up or when you are giving a view you say it's your opinion

Now you have me blushing (or is rosacea?)

[TheLawMan 6,240]

I am not making up the clauses in the IPO prospectus. The two bonus clauses are different for Green and Stockbridge, very similar but still different. Stockbridge got his bonus for our promotion from SFL3. He stated that he didn't think it correct he received a bonus for on-field success and that any bonus for him should be as a result of his financial acumen on behalf of the club.

I appreciate you are not making them up from the Prospectus and i have now seen the "additional line" in Stockbridges, but my point remains, the 2 qualification criteria for Charles is also in Brians. Why would BS say he qualified for bonus due to winning the league and not for getting to another division as per his bonus clause: "Mr Stockbridge is also entitled to a bonus of 100 per cent. of his gross salary in the event that the Club wins promotion from the SFL or otherwise transfers to another football league"

[the goal machine 7,821]

If all this was in the IPO then fans have bought shares knowing all these things in advance so why moan about it now? No one was complaining at the time when this was released

Unless there's something I'm missing here? Usually is

Not many people were complaining about EBT's at the time either, are we allowed to moan about that now?

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

Not many people were complaining about EBT's at the time either, are we allowed to moan about that now?

What a fucking absurd comparison

[the goal machine 7,821]

What a fucking absurd comparison

How? They're both something that fans glossed over really and they've both come to bite us in the arse.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

How? They're both something that fans glossed over really and they've both come to bite us in the arse.

Eh? How's that? EBTs were found to be legal a fine was administered for a paperwork issue on them

You sure your on the right forum?

[the goal machine 7,821]

Eh? How's that? EBTs were found to be legal a fine was administered for a paperwork issue on them

You sure your on the right forum?

They still caused HMRC to come after us which made Murray and Lloyds panic so they sold to Whyte. We might have got away with it but it still had major consequences.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

They still caused HMRC to come after us which made Murray and Lloyds panic so they sold to Whyte. We might have got away with it but it still had major consequences.

I know what your saying but comparing ebts to a Green bonus is a bit off and a measure of how bad the anti Green sentiment has now got

I said it earlier but this time I mean it I'm staying out Bears Den for a while as the lunatics have taken over the asylum - place full of know it alls, accountants, bloggers, agenda pushers, half wits, angry wee men that have no idea about facts, hypocrites, scaremongerers and liars

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

I appreciate you are not making them up from the Prospectus and i have now seen the "additional line" in Stockbridges, but my point remains, the 2 qualification criteria for Charles is also in Brians. Why would BS say he qualified for bonus due to winning the league and not for getting to another division as per his bonus clause: "Mr Stockbridge is also entitled to a bonus of 100 per cent. of his gross salary in the event that the Club wins promotion from the SFL or otherwise transfers to another football league"

Possibly because his bonus counts for every promotion at present.

[the goal machine 7,821]

I know what your saying but comparing ebts to a Green bonus is a bit off and a measure of how bad the anti Green sentiment has now got

I said it earlier but this time I mean it I'm staying out Bears Den for a while as the lunatics have taken over the asylum - place full of know it alls, accountants, bloggers, agenda pushers, half wits, angry wee men that have no idea about facts, hypocrites, scaremongerers and liars

It was just an example. Even though it wasn't picked up on really and the fans invested 5m or so, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take about it.

[The Educator 1,572]

You may wish to debate it but I believe you would lose in any law court. The SPL was a different league from the SFL. We are no longer in the SFL and have moved to the SPFL. The SFL has ceased to exist (or will do shortly). We are now in a different league.

And both were run under the banner of the SFA, and through this they gain right to compete in UEFA competitions. If this was truly a new league that would require them to be independent of the SFA and seek UEFA membership. Furthermore the number of teams who competed is the same as is the actual teams who are members. In the case of activating this clause one would expect it to cover moving to a different league region with different member clubs.

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

It was just an example. Even though it wasn't picked up on really and the fans invested 5m or so, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take about it.

Btw wasn't meaning you in particular

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

And both were run under the banner of the SFA, and through this they gain right to compete in UEFA competitions. If this was truly a new league that would require them to be independent of the SFA and seek UEFA membership. Furthermore the number of teams who competed is the same as is the actual teams who are members. In the case of activating this clause one would expect it to cover moving to a different league region with different member clubs.

RFC is no longer in the SFL, it is really that simple. You are interpreting it the way you would like it be instead of how it actually reads. We may not like it but it reads he is due his bonus.

[The Educator 1,572]

You are interpreting it the way you would like it be instead of how it actually reads. We may not like it but it reads he is due his bonus.

No, I'm showing that it is not as cut and dried as some may like.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Not many people were complaining about EBT's at the time either, are we allowed to moan about that now?

Can't possibly compare the two..............EBTs nothing to do with anyone as they were legal whereas the IPO should have been read prior to handing over money , but as the majority of fans only wanted to own a share certificate it didn't really matter.

The point is those champions, that look for the slightest thing to bring to the people they have been cajoled into hating Green and Co have only now started rummaging through the IPO prospectus , although I believe the people who have passed on this info knew from the off but really couldn't or wouldn't mention it because of the huge fan wave of enthusiasm for the idea.

Indeed it could be said many of the people in opposition welcomed this as it opened a window of opportunity for them to boost coffers and create publicity for themselves, and offer a certain figure of hate (as he is looked upon now) an honourary membership to their group.

[SteveJ 743]

Just been glancing through the IPO pdf off the official site and a little bit about CG renumeration stood out and i'm not sure what it actually means.

could someone who knows what this stuff in bold really means explain for a simpleton please

. Remuneration of the Directors and Key Employees

Executive Directors

2.1 Set out below is information on the employment and remuneration arrangements for the Executive

Directors and the arrangements in place during the financial period ended 31 August 2012. As at

6 December 2012 (being the latest practicable date prior to the date of this document) the Executive

Directors were directors of and employed by RFCL on the following terms:

2.1.1 Charles Green

Under a Scottish law agreement signed on 17 September 2012 (but effective on 12 June

2012), RFCL employed Charles Green as Chief Executive of RFCL for an annual salary of

£360,000 per annum (plus benefits and expenses including accommodation costs). Mr Green

is also entitled to a non-contractual bonus of 100 per cent. gross salary if the Club wins

promotion from the SFL, an equity stake of 10 per cent. of the enlarged ordinary share capital

of RFCL post-secondary fund raising and or IPO and has a contractual right to receive share

options in the event that the RFCL Group’s shares are listed on any recognised exchange,

with a value equivalent to twice Mr Green’s annual salary. The agreement is terminable by

RFCL either for cause or on 6 month’s notice and by Mr Green on 3 months’ notice.

Following termination, Mr Green is restricted for 9 months from, without consent, directly

or indirectly being employed by any football club in the top division in Scotland as a chief

executive or similar role, soliciting any director/senior employee/player/youth player to leave

RFCL or employing a director/senior employee/player/youth player who was employed

within the 12 months preceding the date of termination. The contractual right to an option

over 10 per cent. of the enlarged ordinary share capital of RFCL was exercised by Charles

Green on 31 October 2012 by a partial exercise notice pursuant to which 5,000,000 ordinary

shares of 1p each in RFCL were issued to Charles Green on 31 October 2012. By way of a

letter dated 7 December 2012, Charles Green agreed that such partial option exercise notice

shall represent exercise in full of the option and that the option shall have no further effect.

It appears you have started a debate but not had your answer!

It is only an educated guess but it would appear that the contract for CG as CEO, allowed him to gain 10% of equity in the business - after all shares had been released. This means that if the business was sold, he was entitled to 10% of the profit, before shareholders got their cut.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

I am not making up the clauses in the IPO prospectus. The two bonus clauses are different for Green and Stockbridge, very similar but still different. Stockbridge got his bonus for our promotion from SFL3. He stated that he didn't think it correct he received a bonus for on-field success and that any bonus for him should be as a result of his financial acumen on behalf of the club.

Went back and checked the response from last week and here is what was noted at the time : "Confirmation that executive bonuses were not linked to return to top league but year on year promotion."

Conned !

[SteveJ 743]

It appears you have started a debate but not had your answer!

It is only an educated guess but it would appear that the contract for CG as CEO, allowed him to gain 10% of equity in the business - after all shares had been released. This means that if the business was sold, he was entitled to 10% of the profit, before shareholders got their cut.

Forgot to add. If you read further, he already waived that entitlement in return for the 5million shares he now owns.

[scott12003 715]

Knew we would get there eventually.

Cheers for the explanation.