How do we get shot of McCoist?

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

Does a rolling contract not mean at whatever point you still have the security of a 12 month contract?

Think so. Has to somehow be mutually beneficial.

[daviecooper01 826]

So my understanding of a rolling contract (after a bit of googling) is that the contract runs for a year then it gets renewed for another year if all parties are in agreement. So any idea what date is renewal time?

Nope that would be a contract rolled over.

A rolling one never reduces or increases in time remaining.

[HG5 11,076]

Alot of confusion over Allys rolling deal i always thought it meant it went from one summer ti the next when both party's sat down agreed if they wanted to renew it then signed and there's another year. If that was the case its simple Wallace just tells Ally we are not renewing your deal. However i saw something yesterday about Allys always got a year on his deal no matter what time of year it is. I don't understand that or why we would agree to that as it gives Ally all the benefits and us all the problems of being liable for a years pay off no matter when we decide to sack/not renew his deal.

Such agreements aren't uncommon in the wider business world, especially among the executive class.

Gives the recipient a measure of security, but it 's capped at a max of 12 months money.

As opposed to, say, Pardew at Newcastle - imagine paying him off 3 years into an 8 year deal!

[Robespierre 589]

He'll be gone soon enough.

You know something we don't?

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

Alot of confusion over Allys rolling deal i always thought it meant it went from one summer ti the next when both party's sat down agreed if they wanted to renew it then signed and there's another year. If that was the case its simple Wallace just tells Ally we are not renewing your deal. However i saw something yesterday about Allys always got a year on his deal no matter what time of year it is. I don't understand that or why we would agree to that as it gives Ally all the benefits and us all the problems of being liable for a years pay off no matter when we decide to sack/not renew his deal.

Someone said his contract today will be from 14/4/14 to 14/4/15 tomorrow it will be 15/4/14 it 15/4/15 and so on

This is what I thought it was (prior to my bit of googling about what a normal rolling contract is), so Ally must have got that clause inserted into his contract when he negotiated it with SDM?

[RFC55 108,714]

So his contract never expires?

It just means unless he goes off his own back he will be entitled to a years contract paid up

[elephants stoned 2,994]

Such agreements aren't uncommon in the wider business world, especially among the executive class.

Gives the recipient a measure of security, but it 's capped at a max of 12 months money.

As opposed to, say, Pardew at Newcastle - imagine paying him off 3 years into an 8 year deal!

So it would cost us around 400k to sack Ally?

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

Nope that would be a contract rolled over.

A rolling one never reduces or increases in time remaining.

Thanks for clearing that up. That is what I had thought it was, but then googled it and came up with my post above. Flipping internet - full of misinformation!

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

So it would cost us around 400k to sack Ally?

As long as Ally's sorted, eh?

[Robespierre 589]

So it would cost us around 400k to sack Ally?

Not as hefty as first feared!

[disgruntled_bear 157]

You know something we don't?

Time will tell, but. Been told he's going at the end of the season.

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

So it would cost us around 400k to sack Ally?

i don't care how skint we are, that's doable, particularly as a sensible replacement will cost far less. I absolutely don't buy this "we can't afford to sack him" stuff. It's a lack of balls, not money, that's the problem here.

[elephants stoned 2,994]

As long as Ally's sorted, eh?

Yeah i can kind of see why we got it but at this point a normal 3 year deal would have been almost up and we could simply have told Ally we will not be offering him a new deal.

[Robespierre 589]

Time will tell, but. Been told he's going at the end of the season.

[simplythebest 11,453]

Time will tell, but. Been told he's going at the end of the season.

Drinks on me at the end of the season

[bluenose1975 1,287]

Someone said his contract today will be from 14/4/14 to 14/4/15 tomorrow it will be 15/4/14 it 15/4/15 and so on

That's not it I don't think? That would be the same as a years written notice, which surely can't be legal. I reckon every year he'll sit down at some point and renew for another year. Anyway, ally perhaps should go to avoid another "Greig" tag. But whilst he's in the hot seat he'll get my support

[mrmytto 220]

Maybe we could get the Queen to have done to him what happened to Princess Diana?

[elephants stoned 2,994]

i don't care how skint we are, that's doable, particularly as a sensible replacement will cost far less. I absolutely don't buy this "we can't afford to sack him" stuff. It's a lack of balls, not money, that's the problem here.

If its not going to push us close or into admin i say get it done, unless Allys already told the board he's stepping down (which i doubt)

[HG5 11,076]

So it would cost us around 400k to sack Ally?

That should be about the level of it, but I gather from on here that, in return for his pay-cut, he got an enhanced 'back-end'. ( Apologies if I've got that wrong).

Lots are saying we can 't afford to pay him off but, unless it's agreed otherwise, I don't see why we can't pay him off over the year, so it won 't hurt the cashflow so much.

You quite often hear of clubs still paying managers who left years before - why not us?

[elephants stoned 2,994]

That should be about the level of it, but I gather from on here that, in return for his pay-cut, he got an enhanced 'back-end'. ( Apologies if I've got that wrong).

Lots are saying we can 't afford to pay him off but, unless it's agreed otherwise, I don't see why we can't pay him off over the year, so it won 't hurt the cashflow so much.

You quite often hear of clubs still paying managers who left years before - why not us?

That's what clubs mean when they say the manager has been put on "gardening leave" isn't it? Yeah anything just to get us out of this perennial rut Ally has put us in.

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

Yeah i can kind of see why we got it but at this point a normal 3 year deal would have been almost up and we could simply have told Ally we will not be offering him a new deal.

Yeah, I totally agree. Ally has been very cute in getting that clause inserted. He must've known there was a chance he'd flop and he got that clause inserted to guarantee himself a payoff.

[HG5 11,076]

Not as hefty as first feared!

How much is in the Rangers Football Fighting Fund?

That would be a good use of the cash!

[Robespierre 589]

We could just send him on an "Ambassadorial Mission" to North Korea

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

That should be about the level of it, but I gather from on here that, in return for his pay-cut, he got an enhanced 'back-end'. ( Apologies if I've got that wrong).

Lots are saying we can 't afford to pay him off but, unless it's agreed otherwise, I don't see why we can't pay him off over the year, so it won 't hurt the cashflow so much.

You quite often hear of clubs still paying managers who left years before - why not us?

Great idea! But would that prevent him from taking up his inevitable cheeky chappy TV gig?

[Ger_onimo 20,488]

Yeah, I totally agree. Ally has been very cute in getting that clause inserted. He must've known there was a chance he'd flop and he got that clause inserted to guarantee himself a payoff.

It's not really a clause, it's a type of contract designed, primarily, to allow a club to get rid of a manager easily. It's very common. It's only our ridiculous finances which mean we have to think twice about paying up a years money.