Were the Directors not meant to work for free?

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 hour ago, gj923 said:

My guess it would be for reducing the losses...if we had a transparent board they would ofc announced this and explained why. As far as I know they have not

So it's for being just piss instead of really piss, or is it just a yearly bonus no matter what he does. 

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

1 hour ago, Courtyard Bear said:

That's fine mate, but can we stop with all the rest got way with more so this guy is ok. 

I want to know just what he had to achieve to get that bonus, from a club that is limping from loan to loan. 

That's only one way of looking at it (whilst still true). From experience, the bonus is probably based on numerous factors and it will only be part of what he is entitled to. 

That is guesswork though.

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,099]

3 hours ago, eskbankloyal said:

Could be based on anything:

In the 12 months to 30 June 2016 (he was MD full time)

Revenue increased £6m, operating losses decreased £8m, net loss down £4.4m, EBITDA went from a £6.8m loss to a 100k profit, the Club won the Championship and reached Scottish Cup final, ST sales increased by 10k, then another 5k this year.

 

so from the time where the boycotters came back and we got a manager who brought back attractive football and won games on the park, keeping fans happy, he gets a bonus for that

bain got it tight for taking a bonus for debt reduction the years that walter got us to the CL group stages which earned us upwards of 18mill extra revenue, i see no difference here

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

1 hour ago, Smile said:

It certainly answers the Question now you Answer mines. 

No it doesn't. 

But anyway, I wasn't expecting you to answer anyway. 

IMO, there has been 1 individual who has gone too far with their behaviour :) 

[Smile 26,624]

1 minute ago, eskbankloyal said:

No it doesn't. 

But anyway, I wasn't expecting you to answer anyway. 

IMO, there has been 1 individual who has gone too far with their behaviour :) 

 

 

I do like to give an answer now and again but I find sometimes almost all the time really I prefer a Question directed at someone else.

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

3 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

so from the time where the boycotters came back and we got a manager who brought back attractive football and won games on the park, keeping fans happy, he gets a bonus for that

bain got it tight for taking a bonus for debt reduction the years that walter got us to the CL group stages which earned us upwards of 18mill extra revenue, i see no difference here

That's your opinion. 

[kplfishtank 4,679]

2 hours ago, eskbankloyal said:

That's not answering my question, who are they? 

What 'sweetner' can anybody get from the Rangers Lotto ffs? You clearly have no idea how that program works? I've not seen any 'prominent supporter' for around a year now in the Directors Box so again, not sure how that squares. 

Not one fan should have been in the directors box after helping king and co remove the old board. 

In my opinion they will be less likely to say anything about the current boards mistakes as they've sat down with them.

fans need to stay impartial to boards and vice versa. 

[STEPPS BOY 75,414]

17 minutes ago, AlCapone said:

He's an employee with a contract no different from lee Wallace. Are you saying Wallace shouldn't get his 6 figure salary and the bonuses in his contact as his employers are operating via loans? 

Spot on, sir.

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 25,099]

Just now, eskbankloyal said:

That's your opinion. 

its not really an opinion, everything you listed is linked to the upturn on the park and the fact that King won the EGM, he didnt sell extra ST's, he didnt win the league himself or get us to the scottish cup final himself, the turnover increased and losses fell due to the increase in revenue brought in by the returning fans, his wage is fine, but a bonus for things that inevitably came from things outwith his general control seems poor taste given our financial issues

[George Goudie 42]

12 hours ago, Prso's headband said:

His title in just about every article on him is managing director

He's managing director of the subsidiary. None of the non-executive directors are paid money anymore. 

[harry handsome 629]

3 hours ago, kplfishtank said:

Not one fan should have been in the directors box after helping king and co remove the old board. 

In my opinion they will be less likely to say anything about the current boards mistakes as they've sat down with them.

fans need to stay impartial to boards and vice versa. 

I would agree with this to a point, also keep in mind no one would intentionally allow a hostile a seat at any board meeting/directors box - as the human physche works why would you.

I work in a main board scenario where robust conversation is a must but not to the point of negatives, there is no chance that King etal will allow that to happen given the fight they have on their hands with the previous board and sitting members representing Ashley.

The current board need a compliant holding group with everyone pulling in the same direction to fend off the Ashley group.

[True Azure 1,414]

18 hours ago, AlCapone said:

He's an employee with a contract no different from lee Wallace. Are you saying Wallace shouldn't get his 6 figure salary and the bonuses in his contact as his employers are operating via loans? 

So, you'll be able to inform us all EXACTLY what the fucking £53,000 bonus money was for then? Wallace's contract will include details for bonus' for cup wins, league position finish etc etc. No one can tell us what the £53,000 is for, other than speculation.