Printable View
sally McCoist was getting a salary of £825k :shocked:
The results revealed McCoist's salary to be £825,000 before agreeing to a wage cut, which the manager says is now closer to a 50% reduction reported in one newspaper on Friday and not, as some have suggested, a 15% cut.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/24395665
Even halved, it's way too high for middle-management in a startup company.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
:agree: unbelievable sort of wage for a manager of a new start team. how much management experience does he actually have, to earn 400k+, ? a team playing in the 3rd tier of Scottish football too.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
The Swansea manager is getting less apparently
lol ......Money well spent on Wally :cb
McCoist is a TV star from Question of Sport so he's worth every penny
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
I think I'd prefer Sue Barker
:wink:
The clubs that were in the SPL between 2009 and 2012 got a share of £600K proceeds from the liquidation of Setanta last week.
Apart from Rangers, who died.
https://twitter.com/mcgceltic/status...919936/photo/1
:greengrin
Shouldn't the liquidators get it, though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
I'd like to see hearts denied their share
Not for any valid accountancy reasons, just out of sheer bad will to cheats who were operating in the period in question
So the Desperados want Dave King back.........
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...return-2356060
I wonder how many of the baying mob that were criticising the SFA for not identifying Craig Whyte as not a fit and proper person to run a football club will be demanding the same here. Certainly not McCoist who will prostitute himself to any one who will give him loads of cash to spend on players and salary....
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/237753-d...n-authorities/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Yep, McCoist has now once again shown the loyalty for which he's famous, to whoever holds the purse strings. No wonder Sue Barker got shot of him...
It is a village of little Huns. If I was a follower of the newco then I'd be looking for as few connections to dead co as possible. In which case the reappearance of king would be most unwelcome. But apparently the resurrectionalists are trying to bring the old times back to life. Very strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Re: Dave King
I was under the impression that if you were a director with a company who were liquidated, the law says you can't join the new company for 5 years ?
Can any of our more knowledgable posters shed some light on this....
Calls for Dave King, The New Saviour, are in full force now. That's Sandy Jardine in the papers today saying how much they need his money to be able to instantly compete against Celtic on their entry to the 'Premiership' **
This is the Celtic that are debt free and have tens of millions in the bank after having unchallenged entry for Scotland's place in the Champions League, which they'll have for a few years yet. There is absolutely no chance that Rangers can hope to compete financially for years to come without mega-investment.
These people really have learned nothing.
** I so hate that name.
Pretty sure that's not the case, unless the director has been served with a disqualification order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingertosser
There has been no suggestion of that in the Rangers situation yet.
Outside the world of football, investor means someone who puts money into a business with the intention of receiving annual income and eventually selling shares for at least the purchase price. When King is being asked to invest in Rangers the fans' expectation is that he will pour millions in with no hope of ever seeing it again.
It's possible that King wants to do this and run the club as a personal project. If he does he's going to have to deal with earlier investors, who are actually there to make money. Genuine instituational investors will want to see a business plan which includes payment of dividends. In addition there may be still be people like Green and his associates who were just there to take as much as they could out in the short term and don't care what sort of a mess the club is left in (see - everyone has some good in them if you look hard enough).
There'll probably be a cash crisis during the next couple of seasons, though I don't think it's going to be as severe as a lot of people hope. Once that's dealt with there's the potential for plenty of conflict between investors looking for a return on their money and the fans and others who think that someone will come in and spend vast sums on players without getting anything back. I reckon Rangers can afford their current spending levels once they're back in the top division, but the bears will expect a warchest and international stars and they're not likely to get that.
It gets even more desperate. The bit about just ignoring his past financial irregularities is astonishing! but the section about Kings wealth, his wine cabinet and all his servants but that he`s just a normal, down to earth guy.........is pure comedy gold.Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...urning-2360162
"it's been robbed a little of its old class". Haha, for a start, it's a completely different club and number two, the old Rangers didn't have any class.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurferRosa
Why do journalists refer to them as the same club? Why are Trading Standards allowing the Rangers to release decanters depicting 140 years of unbroken history when they've only been in existence just over a year? Baffling.
To be fair its Barry Ferguson but i realise how it could be mistaken for a 'Record Journalist'.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Pedantic_Hibee
If Barry is so concerned about The Rangers being financially secure, perhaps he could start repaying his EBT to help them out?Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
Barry would rather say 'its a new club' than front up to that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedantic_Hibee
Exactly the trap I'd hope he fall into. It can't be a new club as and when it suits them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
I sincerely hope that if and when The Rangers make it to the Premiership that Hibs refer to them as The Rangers. They are a completely new club and I think it's absolutely disgraceful the way they are allowed to carry on with their stars on the strips etc. It's false advertising for a start.
Can someone with better knowledge of these things explain why these 'people' (things) are allowed to do this - I thought there was something called 'Phoenix Companies Law' (?) that makes this illegal ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedantic_Hibee
Nothing illegal in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Company A owns, and trades as Brand X.
Company A goes bust.
Company B buys Brand X from Company A.
Company B now owns, and trades as, Brand X
Just a question. Why then were Airdrieonians not allowed to call themselves that, couldn`t adopt the same badge and had to change their name to Airdrie Utd? I know that they`ve recently sneaked the old badge back on the jerseys and changed the name back but their history now officially only stretches back to 2002. Just curious as to what the difference is that forced them to accept they were brand new and why SevCo and the Scottish media seem to think that the same rules that affected Airdrieonians dont apply to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Very strange. Maybe it was because Jim Ballentyne did not purchase the clubs name and crest from the receivers KPMG? Ballantyne registered the names Airdrie FC Ltd and Airdrie Football Club Ltd and KPMG then withdrew the clubs name and crest from sale.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurferRosa
I recall Jim Ballentyne being interviewed a couple of years back on this very topic. He stated that he would love for Airdrie United to play with the old crest and original name but the receiver told him that for that to happen the creditors from the insolvency of Airdrieonians would have to be repaid.
To my knowledge, the countless people and businesses owed rather a lot of money by Rangers Football Club Ltd ( Dead Co ), have never been paid a single penny back. Strange indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
As JGL says, the new Airdrie company didn't buy the brand. Sevco, on the other hand, bought the Rangers brand.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurferRosa
Yes, but he also said that Ballantyne was told by the liquidators that in order to "buy the brand", the NewCo would have to pay the money owed to the OldCo`s creditors. So why wasn`t SevCo forced to follow this same rule? They seem to have just decided that they paid for another clubs history and that`s that. Why didn`t D&P tell Green the same, if that`s the rule?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I am not familiar with the Airdrie story, but the liquidator/administrator (not sure which.. JGL says "receiver") wasn't following any "rules" as such. I can only guess that he had decided that the price for the brand was the full payment of all creditors. Nothing legally wrong with that... and the "receiver" did't get what he was asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by SurferRosa
In Rangers case, the price for the brand was £1, which was set by the administrators. Again, nothing legally wrong with that.....
The only question for me, as has been raised many times before, is whether the brand was undervalued. That may yet be tested in the Courts. However, there is nothing legally wrong with the transaction itself.