Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bendarroch]

And now 67 players are going to sue Rangers.

Are they? Are they really?

[Bendarroch]

I actually agree with you Bendy and tried to greenie this ...this is possibly about the only sensible post you've made in the entire thread.

So that's about 1 sensible post in 1500 or so? f**k me my batting average is on the up!

[lithgierose]

The Mods here really are reluctant to wield the Ban-Hammer for personal abuse, aren't they?

the mods on rangers media know how to behave

GOT MY MOJO WORKING

<li class="avatar"><li class="group_title">Moderator<li class="group_icon"><li class="post_count desc lighter"> 7,481 posts

• Gender:Male
• Location:God's Country

Posted Today, 09:02 AM

Any former employee who sues Rangers Football Club should be metaphorically stoned to death, hung, drawn and quartered and their remains shat upon by a herd of AIDS-riddled fucking wildebeest.

Dirty, greedy rat-bag b*****ds.

[TheLip69]

the mods on rangers media know how to behave

GOT MY MOJO WORKING

<li class="avatar"><li class="group_title">Moderator<li class="group_icon"><li class="post_count desc lighter"> 7,481 posts

• Gender:Male
• Location:God's Country

Posted Today, 09:02 AM

Any former employee who sues Rangers Football Club should be metaphorically stoned to death, hung, drawn and quartered and their remains shat upon by a herd of AIDS-riddled fucking wildebeest.

Dirty, greedy rat-bag b*****ds.

I am glad I am an atheist if that's an example of the inhabitants of God's country.

[Mad Capsule]

Kyle Lafferty is to sue Rangers in what will be known as "The Big Twat's Case".

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Claymores certainly went over the top last night, but that's Bennett's MO - pick a target, needle them continually until you get a reaction, escalate until your victim crosses an invisible "Bennett-approved" line, then pour on the mock outrage. Claymores simply made it easy for him, unfortunately. I wonder how Bennett will feel if the target of one of his suicide suggestions actually does top themselves? He certainly seems to believe alcoholism is a fucking great joke - maybe he should talk to a few innocent relatives of alcoholics, and see what a barrel of laughs their lives are.

As for the whole "cancer is a special case" bollox - no it's not. There are many terminal illnesses you could be afflicted by, but cancer still seems to have some emotional hold over the general public. Celebrities don't become "brave" when they're diagnosed - you've got something, anything, wrong with you, you'll do your best to get better. You don't "battle" against some invisible opponent. Injuries, illnesses, disabilities - whatever life throws at you,it's human nature to try your best to get back on track as far as possible, and the majority of sufferers of any of these will tell you to stick your fake sympathy up your arse. It may not be the most popular view on here, but I'm being honest. Two months ago, Sandy Jardine was a gobshite. Now he's an ill gobshite. Sure, I don't wish him any harm, but his full recovery will affect me just as much as any deterioration would. Let him and his family - and anyone living with any illness, injury or disability - get on with their lives.

Back on topic - What's Jabba the Media Mastermind got to say about all those traitors?

So you have zero objections to whataboutery when it suits your purpose?

Two-faced is the kindest thing anyone could say about you, WKR.

Cherry-picking, vile little arsehole would be high praise indeed for you, you verminous little arse-licker.

Whataboutery?

Any interest in the topic at hand, or just want to trade insults again? 'Cos you're no Guybrush, you do realise that, don't you?

[Bendarroch]

Cherry-picking

I'll be the first to acknowledge the day you offer some cherries to pick.

Shooting solid shites floating on your slurry is the reality.

[Bendarroch]

Kyle Lafferty is to sue Rangers in what will be known as "The Big Twat's Case".

Sounds about right!

[Bairnforever1992]

Charles Green shiteness is running out, wonder what his porkie pies statements going to put out tonight.

Yet more pleasing news!

Players’ union defends right to raise legal action against Rangers

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Charles Green shiteness is running out, wonder what his porkie pies statements going to put out tonight.

Yet more pleasing news!

Players' union defends right to raise legal action against Rangers

“For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only,” the statement said.. “It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported.

“It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instructions. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name. PFA Scotland regularly represents its members as a collective – for example when speaking to the football governing bodies.”

*Adopts smug "told you so" expression*

Interesting to see that it is rangers themselves who have raised the "67 players" line - looks like Jabba's settling in....

[Shades75]

Give WRK's posts credit here.

He's provided the clarity that has prevented pages and pages of guesswork, accusations and bullshit.

[bennett]

"For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only," the statement said.. "It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported.

"It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instructions. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name. PFA Scotland regularly represents its members as a collective – for example when speaking to the football governing bodies."

*Adopts smug "told you so" expression*

Interesting to see that it is rangers themselves who have raised the "67 players" line - looks like Jabba's settling in....

What Norman forgot to post fromt he article.

The union revealed that no individual player may wish to pursue or benefit from the claim but that as a representative body it had raised concerns with Rangers and administrators Duff and Phelps over their TUPE obligations.

“It is also important to clarify the legal basis of the claim,” the statement said. “The law places an obligation on employers to collectively consult with trade unions/employee representatives in advance of a TUPE transfer and trade unions/ employee representatives regularly litigate such claims before Employment Tribunals.

“It may be that no player will pursue this. That will simply be a matter for each player and in fact many of the players have already stated that they will waive any such entitlement. It must be stressed that the motive for PFA Scotland in pursuing this claim has never been financial.”

A spokesperson for Rangers told STV on Monday: “Rangers position is that these claims are baseless and invalid and affect, in reality, a small number of players who left the club in the summer."

With more to follow...

[Bendarroch]

Charles Green shiteness is running out, wonder what his porkie pies statements going to put out tonight.

Yet more pleasing news!

Players' union defends right to raise legal action against Rangers

PFA Scotland said: “For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only. It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported."

WTF? Were you LYING earlier Bhairn?

[Shades75]

PFA Scotland said: “For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only. It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported."

WTF? Were you LYING earlier Bhairn?

Was Green in the prospectus?

[Bendarroch]

Was Green in the prospectus?

You don't think legal advice would have been sought prior to publication? I think Tedi already pointed out it would have been an obligation to mention the issue.

[Bairnforever1992]

PFA Scotland said: "For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only. It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported."

WTF? Were you LYING earlier Bhairn?

Haven't you read on the Prospectus that Charles Green stated there are players going to sue Rangers, read paragraph 105.

Certain players of RFC 2012 plc (Alan McGregor, Kyle Lafferty, Rhys McCabe, Sone Aluko, Steven Davis, John Fleck, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker and Jamie Ness) purported to object to the transfer of their contracts of employment to RFCL pursuant to TUPE. RFCL maintains that these purported objections were incompetent and that the players instead unilaterally terminated their contracts of employment in an unlawful manner. Arbitration proceedings under Article 99 of the Articles of Association of the SFA were commenced on 5 July 2012 in the name of RFC 2012 plc. Any damages due would be payable to RFCL. RFCL was not a member of the SFA at that time and therefore the reference had to be made by RFC 2012 plc. RFC 2012 plc accepts that it has no financial interest in the outcome. Discussions took place with representatives of some of the players and agreements have now been reached with Steven Davis, John Fleck and Rhys McCabe. Representatives acting on behalf of the remaining players have challenged RFCL's rights to participate in the process in any capacity given that it was not a member of the SFA at the time of the alleged breaches of contract and the date of the reference to the SFA under Article 99. A preliminary hearing has been fixed for 7 January 2013 at which these jurisdictional challenges will be determined. If RFCL is successful at this hearing, then the claims against the remaining players will proceed to a full hearing. At this point it is anticipate that such a full hearing will take place in March or April of 2013. Preliminary advice from senior counsel is that RFCL's prospects of winning these preliminary arguments are good. However, it is not currently possible to quantify these claims in full.

Rangers International Football Club AIM

Edited December 11, 2012 by Bairnforever1992

[Burma]

You don't think legal advice would have been sought prior to publication?

With Chuckie Cheese's track record, constant lies & gung ho approach to legal obligations then its not an automatic assumption.

[Shades75]

You don't think legal advice would have been sought prior to publication? I think Tedi already pointed out it would have been an obligation to mention the issue.

Yeh, I got that.

I'm talking about the 67 players reference, was the prospectus not the first place that that number was mentioned?

Apologies if I am wrong.

[~~~]

So apparently an employee of PFAScotland is a Celtic fan

Well done to Sevco fans to track her down and out her on twitter

This obviously means the PFA have an agenda against Sevco

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Something here I've got experience of, for a change...

The Union will be taking action against rangers for their treatment of employees - some who may not be members - which may contravene Employment Law. This is normal practice, as one of a Union's raisons d'etre is to protect workers against unscrupulous employers by ensuring employers follow the rules. They do not have to be acting as a result of an individual member's request, nor indeed do they need individuals' consent to raise this action.

This explains why some players have said they know nothing about the action - it's about their treatment as employees under law, and they may not be aware of any malpractice. It's about them, but not about them as individuals, if that makes sense.

In some cases, the players will have benefited from the transfer to the new company. Lee McCullough is probably a good example, as any new contract he would have been offered would most likely not have been as lucrative. Other players, most likely those on "starter" level contracts, will have noticed little or no change.

What appears to have initiated this is, and here we go again, Charles Green's cavalier attitude to the whole business. Remember, he believed the players were part of the "assets". As far as he concerned, they were no more human beings than the car park or ibrox. Toys were duly thrown when it was pointed out to him that this is not the Middle Ages, and you can't treat people like goods or chattels anymore. Losing the likes of Naismith, McGregor and even Lafferty for f**k all made quite a dent in his calculations, and he's still not happy about it.

As I said, it is not down to individual players to make this case, and if they don't want to speak out against the new club, they won't have to. There are many reasons, some not involving fear and intimidation, why they would wish to recuse themselves. No praise or damnation can be levelled at any of them, as personal circumstances differ from case to case.

The SPFA's case is that, in enough cases to demonstrate Custom & Practise, rangers did not follow the correct procedures under the TUPE regulations. They will not have taken this matter lightly (Unions don't have money for frivolous legal action) and, given the way rangers behaved over the high-profile cases in the Summer, I reckon it's likely they were if not ignorant, then certainly dismissive of the Law - an attitude towards football players as "not normal employees" which the SPFA (and its English equivalent) have worked for years to eliminate.

Hope that's relevant, on-topic and free enough of personal abuse for the Quality Control boys.

"For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only," the statement said.. "It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported.

"It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instructions. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name. PFA Scotland regularly represents its members as a collective – for example when speaking to the football governing bodies."

*Adopts smug "told you so" expression*

Interesting to see that it is rangers themselves who have raised the "67 players" line - looks like Jabba's settling in....

What Norman forgot to post fromt he article.

The union revealed that no individual player may wish to pursue or benefit from the claim but that as a representative body it had raised concerns with Rangers and administrators Duff and Phelps over their TUPE obligations.

"It is also important to clarify the legal basis of the claim," the statement said. "The law places an obligation on employers to collectively consult with trade unions/employee representatives in advance of a TUPE transfer and trade unions/ employee representatives regularly litigate such claims before Employment Tribunals.

"It may be that no player will pursue this. That will simply be a matter for each player and in fact many of the players have already stated that they will waive any such entitlement. It must be stressed that the motive for PFA Scotland in pursuing this claim has never been financial."

A spokesperson for Rangers told STV on Monday: "Rangers position is that these claims are baseless and invalid and affect, in reality, a small number of players who left the club in the summer."

With more to follow...

"Forgot"? I don't think so, Bennett. I simply pulled what I believed was relevant from the article - which was linked in the quote box in my reply.

In actual fact, what you've tried to place as a "here's what he doesn't want you to know" actually follows, point by point, what I posted this morning. I'm actually quite pleased that I got the Union line so accurate. A shame you're so stupid that your attempted attack has only reinforced what I originally posited.

So, given that the SPFA didn't release the "67 players" line, where did that come from? Any guesses? Who would want to take a rangers story and sensationalise/spin it? Would you or any of your thick friends like to comment on the abuse being dealt out to the players online and in the MSM, by fans and club representatives?

As I pointed out earlier, this is not about these particular players - it is about the employer and the way it treats employees represented by the Union.

Edited December 11, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie