Widge Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 So Rangers only need three other Clubs to vote them back in? If it turns out Aberdeen were to vote in such a way, I seriously think I would turn my back on them forever. And even though it's been really shit these past few years, that would still be a very painful thing to do Other way round, they need 8 votes to stay in IIRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazza1910 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Sorry to piss on this happiness parade but whats the punishment ?. Playing at Ibrox, free of financial shackles, same old h un supporting refs, still Rangers fc as name . They should be laughing at us . They'll not be laughing when the SFA suspend them for a year. Keep up pal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) I'm fairly certain they can walk away. In the event that the company goes into liquidation without a new Rangers being set up then they will be made redundant and will walk away. If a new Rangers is set up then their contracts of employment will transfer by operation of law into that new business undertaking and can be dismissed in very limited circumstances (which we don't need to consider right now) but they cannot be compelled to transfer to a new employer. I can't see any other scenario. I suppose it's possible that Green will attempt to 'buy' their registrations from Rangers but to what effect? What we need to remember is that in the vast majority of cases the workforce is willing to carry on under new ownership because they are glad to keep their jobs. However the newco cannot just keep the parts of the deal which suit it. It can ditch the debt but it cannot then say that it insists on keeping employees as slaves. Under european law it is illegal to "sell" employees to another company. Transfers in football go through simply because players are bribed by big signing on fees but they can still refuse to be transferred. If they refuse a transfer to the newco then they continue to be employed by the oldco, which can no longer pay their wages, so there is nothing to prevent them walking out and finding a new employer. Edited June 12, 2012 by WeeHectorPar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 They will be listed in the fixtures. Voted in by the SPL clubs. Suspended for a year by SFA. League plays out with 11 - but since they didn't go under mid season the blazers can insist on a relegation at the end. Suspension over, back in they go with the SFL left really frustrated and helpless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Pleasing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 (edited) Other way round, they need 8 votes to stay in IIRC. You are half right, they need 8 votes to be accepted into the SPL. The newco are to apply for Rangers's share in the event that Rangers no longer exist. Don't forget that Dundee and Falkirk both have applications in place for any vacant share atm, their applications should be considered on an equal footing to Zombie FC. Edited June 12, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Tyrone Smith @TyroneSTV#motherwell say they've a duty to act in club's best interests & hope these cn be 'reconciled wth the interests of the game' #spl That's the first yes to newco then. There's no way they won't be voted straight back in. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 1339516056[/url]' post='6327620']At it's lowest level TUPE says that you transfer to the new employer on exactly the same terms as previously and with the same continuity of employment. You get to opt out if you want and therefore you would just walk away with nothing due to or by. I can't see why a player would agree to transfer (and thereby bind himself into a contract) if he wanted to leave. Let's say Everton want to pay £2m for Steven Naismith: why would he agree to transfer and allow himself to be sold subsequently when he could simply walk away and accept the £2m as a signing on payment (not that Everton would necessarily pay that but you get the gist of the dynamic). Does a new employer have to take on the employees? Do you really want Whittaker, McGregor, Davis on big contracts. It could turn into a Bobo Balde situation where they are just a financial drain on the club. They are all good players but that is massive financial burden with probably diminished attendances and no European money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 What we need to remember is that in the vast majority of cases the workforce is willing to carry on under new ownership because they are glad to keep their jobs. However the newco cannot just keep the parts of the deal which suit it. It can ditch the debt but it cannot then say that it insists on keeping employees as slaves. Under european law it is illegal to "sell" employees to another company. Transfers in football go through simply because players are bribed by big signing on fees but they can still refuse to be transferred. If they refuse a transfer to the newco then they continue to be employed by the oldco, which can no longer pay their wages, so there is nothing to prevent them walking out and finding a new employer. Yes, that's what I was saying although, if we're going to dance on a pin head their contract with the oldco would be terminated by their refusal to transfer. Strictly speaking. When the business undertaking transfers they can go or they can refuse to go and become free agents but they can't stay with the old employer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 What we need to remember is that in the vast majority of cases the workforce is willing to carry on under new ownership because they are glad to keep their jobs. As someone who has been TUPEd in the past it's more a case of not being entitled to a redundancy payment if you refuse to be TUPEd. I would have loved to have left, rather than join Employer Number 2, but had I done so I would have walked away with nothing. It's something I've long believed is a major flaw of TUPE. Company A can rid itself of employees to company B, who can then shaft you later by eroding your terms and conditions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 They will be listed in the fixtures. Voted in by the SPL clubs. Suspended for a year by SFA. League plays out with 11 - but since they didn't go under mid season the blazers can insist on a relegation at the end. Suspension over, back in they go with the SFL left really frustrated and helpless. That seems like one of the more unlikely scenarios. It's one thing the SPL clubs voting to keep Rangers in the league, but it's an entirely different prospect for them to decide to play for a year without Rangers, play out a season with either 3 or 4 games fewer, and still have the risk of relegation from an 11 team league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 hahahaha a rangers fan He's on one of his bad days today. Please don't upset him any more than you have to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I think Saints will vote yes, but for heavy sanctions to be placed on them. Not good enough in my eyes, but Steve did come out after the CoS case and said that. I doubt his views will have changed much since then. Voting yes would make us very hypocritical - we have absolutely slated Motherwell, Dundee and Gretna for years for their financial faux pas. Steve will be disinherited if he doesn't vote them back in. It's still daddy's club don't forget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergie's no1 fan Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 alex thomson @alextomo HMRC confirm new Rangers will not be liable for Big Tax Case if taxman wins - but company in administration (present RFC) is liable. fuxake Looks like they are going to get off scot free 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 So Rangers only need three other Clubs to vote them back in? If it turns out Aberdeen were to vote in such a way, I seriously think I would turn my back on them forever. And even though it's been really shit these past few years, that would still be a very painful thing to do Sally will insist on transparency will he not so with that he'll happily tell us who voted to keep them in. It would be ironic if the other clubs lost supporters due to allowing a Newco to remain in the SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widge Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Tyrone Smith @TyroneSTV#motherwell say they've a duty to act in club's best interests & hope these cn be 'reconciled wth the interests of the game' #spl That's the first yes to newco then. There's no way they won't be voted straight back in. So Motherwell are saying yes, who are the other 7, the more I look at it, the more I can't see a Newco being allowed back in, there are simply too many teams making noises about not allowing it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oregonbud Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 gotta go to work so will miss the party,but i will be having a great day knowing that its all starting to fall down. oh happy days :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Tyrone Smith @TyroneSTV#motherwell say they've a duty to act in club's best interests & hope these cn be 'reconciled wth the interests of the game' #spl That's the first yes to newco then. There's no way they won't be voted straight back in. I hope to f**k I never get stuck in a lift with you. I'd probably slit my your wrists. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Dogma Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 If newco goes to sfl they will die before they get back to spl ... ibrox and MP cost millions to operate annuall so even if the had an amateur squad they wont be able operate sustainably for the min three years reqd gretna went bust just from payroll costs .its spl or bust for rfc anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue about the costs of the facilities 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.