(30-01-2016, 01:28)hibeejim21 Wrote:

(30-01-2016, 00:00)El Car Wrote:

(29-01-2016, 23:43)TheWorthinGer Wrote: The first I've come across a union - and I was a rep for a number of years - actively supporting its members' right to lie and endanger the business they work for in full knowledge that the member is unable to substantiate his claims.

This is exactly the problem with the NUJ. As part of the apology and explanation issued by the Herald they said that Spiers had admitted what he said wasn't true, and yet Haggerty (and let's not forget she has a demonstrable anti-Rangers agenda and is an associate and supporter of a prominently known sectarian bigot blogger) still protested about the retraction, and all this despite knowing that persisting with the lie was likely to land her employer in legal trouble. In other words she wanted the paper to deliberately pursue a defamatory lie even after acknowledging that it was a lie. In all honesty I can't think of any situation where an employer would find it acceptable for any employee to intentionally seek to legally damage them in order to pursue a personal agenda, and in a world where it's practically impossible to get sacked it's one of the few situations that would practically guarantee termination of employment.

And yet the NUJ thinks the Herald was wrong in this?? The Herald wasn't "unwilling to stand up for its contributors", it was protecting itself from a suicide bomber. 

 

The herald was a great paper. Its actually done because of the likes of you.

cheap level 5 etc etc...

(30-01-2016, 02:06)supercooper Wrote: Ah drinking and typing the femme fatale.

---

The outporing begins.

Quote:A Guardian analysis of the Rangers accounts suggests that the club’s joint venture with Sports Direct, Rangers Retail Ltd, has paid the Scottish championship team dividends of about £559,000 since the deal came into effect almost four years ago. During that time, the Rangers store has taken more than £13m through its tills from fans, while a previous retail deal with JJB Sports saw the club receive an initial payment of £18m, with a guaranteed minimum annual royalty of £3m.

Over the same four-year period, the accounts also suggest that Sports Direct was paid three times Rangers’ dividends, totalling about £1.8m. On top of those payments, it has also earned hundreds of thousands of pounds from the joint venture for providing retailing services. Despite the difference in the amounts received by each party, Rangers owns 51% of Rangers Retail, while Sports Direct holds the remaining 49%.

The agreements between the pair also include:

•    A seven-year notice period to break the contract
  
•    A confidentiality agreement that binds Rangers but not Sports Direct
  
•    Obligations for Rangers Retail to buy stock at a “higher cost than its retail value”
  
•    A clause allowing Sports Direct to force Rangers out of its shareholding in Rangers Retail if the relationship between the club and the retailer is “deadlocked”
  
•    A further clause that forced the football club to pay Sports Direct £620,000 for closing down two former Rangers stores in Glasgow and Belfast
  
•    Zero upfront payment to Rangers for awarding the retail deal to Sports Direct in 2012
  
•    A controlling vote for Sports Direct on “financial matters” concerning Rangers Retail
  

For 11 months of last year, Rangers lost control of Rangers Retail after the club handed over 26% of the subsidiary’s shares to Sports Direct as security for a loan. During the time Rangers had a minority interest, the accounts show a £300,000 dividend paid to the football club, which suggests that Sports Direct received £900,000. The club now holds 51% of Rangers Retail again after repaying the £5m debt.