Happy Buddie Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Amazingly, I actually agrre with MOST of his blog today, the only sticking point being he says only st Johnston and hibs will survive errrrmmmm I dont think so Loggo Did I miss something? What specifically did Lawell do that's upset him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 What specifically did Lawell do that's upset him? Joined Celtic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Joined Celtic. Too quick for me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Ballot box at our meeting also. Are you at it? Look at my pseudonym. Look at my club. Where do you think I was between 1055 and 1245 on Saturday!! Jaysus..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Are you at it? Look at my pseudonym. Look at my club. Where do you think I was between 1055 and 1245 on Saturday!! Jaysus..... Alternative first line "Are you a tit?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Going back bout ten years to last time I was involved with a tupe but the guidance we had from hr was that we had to keep staff for min six months apart from disciplinary action .maybe that legislation has changed but point of tupe is to protect employees not employers. Either way I doubt if they would be able to cut costs via redundancies and essentially sfl three kills newco fiscally very quickly Sounds like that advice was based on "safety first". I cant find anything to suggest the newco makes any commitment to keep TUPEd staff for any length of time. All I can find is that proper notice periods must be observed for any change to T&Cs or redundancies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Alternative first line "Are you a tit?" Nah, couldn't do that to one of our own.... (S)he's obviously missed the point that I was at the meeting, and so was (S)he. We're too few in number to completely fall out!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamish_ict Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 It's astonished me the frank willingness people have to threaten abandonment of their clubs Rangers obviously shouldn't have been allowed in the SPL, but SPL fans abandoning their club because Rangers are in the first? Not real fans IMO. I know what you mean. I'm going back to inverness next season, but something still bugs me. I really hope that the spl clubs were unaware the buns were going to get entered back into div 1. If it turns out they were then I'm done. Not happy about the div 1 thing. Just as long as it's made clear that it's a new club. And everyone knows it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
___ Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 It's astonished me the frank willingness people have to threaten abandonment of their clubs Rangers obviously shouldn't have been allowed in the SPL, but SPL fans abandoning their club because Rangers are in the first? Not real fans IMO. If you wish to continue attending a curropt uncompetative league which is openly biased towards two teams then thats up to you but some people have better things to do with their time. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Keeping tabs from abroad now- have any of the press/tv folk queried Doncaster about spl setting up a contract with Sky which officially removed the non competitive aspect from the spl? Surely Rangers oldco going into liquidation has been a prospect for several years, pre-dating the signing of that contract (the details of which were kept secret from us)? Folk at the top of the spl have clearly been negligent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushroom Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I remember that. An absolute shocker. It was like the Clyde/Celtic cup came in 2006 I think. Not even trying to hide the fact that the Old Firm were going to win, no matter what. Despite the best efforts of Kenny Clark by allowing Du Wei to stay on the park and disallowing two (arguably three) perfectly good goals - we actually won that match 2-1 The beauty of it is was, one of our goals that actually stood was arguably offside - depending how you interpret what an active player is! Of course if you're meaning the one in 2005 - there was less overt cheating going on from Craig Thomson, but we did have a perfectly good goal chalked off at 0-0, before we conceded 5. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 We're too few in number to completely fall out!!! Especially now that you've become social pariahs with no friends (Stennie aside) after your Club became complete sell-oots 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Keeping tabs from abroad now- have any of the press/tv folk queried Doncaster about spl setting up a contract with Sky which officially removed the non competitive aspect from the spl? Surely Rangers oldco going into liquidation has been a prospect for several years, pre-dating the signing of that contract (the details of which were kept secret from us)? Folk at the top of the spl have clearly been negligent. Unaware of any press asking. I asked that question in an email, yet to be replied too. As I said before, we need a clearout regardless of how this goes. This incompetence could kill our national game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 There's stuff going round Twitter that they are looking to resign Aluko if they get into the first. If they get guys in like that then the chances are that they will win promotion at the first attempt. I will stick my neck out and say this is pish. If they sign Aluko I will eat Jambo-something's hat. (Can't remenber which Jambo it was, can't find it in my posts.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I know what you mean. I'm going back to inverness next season, but something still bugs me. I really hope that the spl clubs were unaware the buns were going to get entered back into div 1. If it turns out they were then I'm done. Not happy about the div 1 thing. Just as long as it's made clear that it's a new club. And everyone knows it. This reply is more to the Supras post you quoted, which I missed earlier... What is a "real fan"? Had DUFC deliberately acted against the wishes of the support by shoehorning Whateveryouwanttocallthem FC back into the SPL, what reason would there have been for me to give them any more of my hard earned cash when they clearly don't give a f*ck about my opinion? The situation is the same now - if DUFC have been actively involved in the SPL's attempts to pressure the SFL clubs into pushing them into division one, despite the obvious precedents and guidelines that are in place, then why should I continue to support a team that clearly has no regard for the rules, and no desire to be anything other than a dog living off the scraps from the OF table? This "superior fan" attitude is something that I have always hated. You're not a fan if you don't sing, you're only a fan if you go to every single game, fans who sit in one stand are better than those in another. And now you're not a real fan if you are against the rules being bypassed to allow a team that has systematically cheated an easy route back to their previous ill-gotten rewards. Well in that case, I'm glad I'm not a "real fan". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drainfish Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Having spent time catching up on this thread, one thing seesm to have slipped under the radar. Mr Green's "offer" to allow a fan involvement by share purchase looks like scam to raise operating funds in place of the mission millions from ST sales. By any definition, that ain't investment, that's working capital. And he values the company at £55m, he's offering shares to the fans to the value of half the company value, so he's hoping to get in excess of £25m when SDM got what?, £5m? Dream on. As I've said before, I just can't see them lasting 6 months with the obviously very poor cash flows they seem to be "generating". Putting them into Div 1 would be causing more chaos when Sevco go into admin in February 2013. I'm not sure of the legalities here and maybe someone with more knowledge could clarify. Green bought the assets for 5.5 million which were presumably sold at cost value from the administrator. The oldco has obvious large debt and therefore little intrinsic value. The newco however is valued at 55 million?? Surely this implies that the assets have been significantly undervalued in the sale?? There are issues with who would buy etc and value is only what someone would pay but we know that there were groups willing to pay more than Green eg the Smith 6.5 million bid. Valuing the newco so highly though suggests to me that either the liquidators are negligent or Green is vastly over inflating the club and taking investors for a ride. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 What is this nonsense about fifa etc getting involved. What rules have been broken? Have they got involved previously when clubs in other countries have newcoed in at levels above the bottom tier? People are getting far too carried away here. Boycott this, boycott that. We actually have people cancelling their sky subscriptions because sky don't treat the spl as a charity case ffs I'm fairly sure the UK Government have "rules" or, let's call them "laws" about paying Tax and NIC on employees' earnings. Will that do you for starters? Remember, rangers (remember them) did not appeal the decision of the SFA Tribunal, just the punishment. So even you must admit it's reasonable for people to have "issues" around the idea of letting these cheating, conniving, thieving b*****ds reform in a new guise and welcoming them into a league which they have dishonored, as if nothing had happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulmcc12 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 In which I look at the SFL notice of meeting and discuss, in this part, whether the SFL has been correct in, allegedly, telling Dundee that it cannot vote at Friday’s meeting. I suggest that of all the SFL members, Dundee appear to have the least “conflict”, on the basis that they are to be promoted. In that case why did the SFL tell Dundee it could not vote? http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/sfl-meeting-137-part-1-why-cant-dundee-vote-on-sevco-rangers/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 If you wish to continue attending a curropt uncompetative league which is openly biased towards two teams then thats up to you but some people have better things to do with their time. Hasnt it been like that since the 11-1 vote came in? I'm not sure of the legalities here and maybe someone with more knowledge could clarify. Green bought the assets for 5.5 million which were presumably sold at cost value from the administrator. The oldco has obvious large debt and therefore little intrinsic value. The newco however is valued at 55 million?? Surely this implies that the assets have been significantly undervalued in the sale?? There are issues with who would buy etc and value is only what someone would pay but we know that there were groups willing to pay more than Green eg the Smith 6.5 million bid. Valuing the newco so highly though suggests to me that either the liquidators are negligent or Green is vastly over inflating the club and taking investors for a ride. There was a lengthy, and very detailed, post about this on the scots law thoughts blog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Going back bout ten years to last time I was involved with a tupe but the guidance we had from hr was that we had to keep staff for min six months apart from disciplinary action .maybe that legislation has changed but point of tupe is to protect employees not employers. Either way I doubt if they would be able to cut costs via redundancies and essentially sfl three kills newco fiscally very quickly I am no expert on TUPE but helped a company with 20 staff move from being Council owned to become a private company. Of course TUPE applied. So if the Newco took on the same staff immediately then they would have to do so on the same terms and conditions they were on with the Council, including pay and pension rights etc. When the figures were looked at then the Newco business wasn't viable financially. So the Newco said it would not take them on (informed the Council formally). So the Council made the staff redundant. If the Newco hired them to do the same job even if you called it something else then TUPE still applied. So if you were a 'footballer' in the oldco and taken on by the Newco as a 'superstar' and you were expected to play football (but with different terms) then TUPE would catch you. In this case the staff were without jobs for 3 months, and then with a retraining programme were hired back individually to do what were different roles but with a lot more flexibility in their job descriptions. Took about 18 months to get them all back again. This tooks lots of legal advice, HR specialists and negotiation with the Council involved. To have heard Green spout about players not being able to walk away and he could have the players moved across just like that without any discussion or consultation is just silly, either he was just blustering or he was clueless. As for the players their union is on the case. For the rest of the staff I have no idea, but would suggest they should be talking to a lawyer especially if the terms on offer are different. 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.