Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Henrik's tongue]

I suspect the reason is that Bennett deserves everything he gets as he he dishes out false accusations and personal attacks almost daily, It's an anonymous forum ... so Claymores attack is hardly the crime of the century ,.

There seems to be a few knicker wetting pansies on here ...

Yeah. That definetly merrits wishing cancer on someone.

[SS-18 ICBM]

We have lost a close family member recently .. and several fighting it. I suspect most people know someone with it.

A third of annual deaths among the population of the British Isles are cancer related, it really is the cruelest of diseases. Watching a close family member waste away is the saddest most traumatic experience that i have ever experienced in my life. I cannot think of anything that could be more cruel than being the victim.

Edited December 11, 2012 by SS-18 ICBM

[WhiteRoseKillie]

The SPFA has raised an action against New Rangers for its treatment of Oldco's employees - it's not clear, as far as I can see, whether it's acting independently upon its own authority as a union, or whether it's been instructed to act on behalf of some number of ex-players. Given that a good number of the players who didn't TUPE over were youngsters who were on relatively meagre contracts, I'd guess the latter, but either is possible - I imagine the union wants to establish precedent on these types of situations.

Whatever is happening, most of those players who either took contracts with New Rangers or moved to decent-sized clubs have distanced themselves from the move - largely because they don't want bombs and bullets being sent to their family homes in the post/ They've got loads of money and couldn't give a flying f*ck about a bunch of teenagers who have been diddled out of their contracts/ they love New Rangers and wish it all the best.

Seperately, it appears a few ex-players have got together and launched an action with their own counsel. I have no idea what's going on with that.

On the other side, Charlie is saying that there's nothing to see here and that everything is just fine, and much of the press are reporting this as if it was entirely true and not up for debate, as usual.

I'm no lawyer, but I'd guess that in all likelihood, at least one of these cases is going to have the legs to make it to court and that Charlie will either have to reach an undisclosed agreement outside of court, or face the prospect of a long legal argument in which he's going to be forced to base his case on New Rangers having no connection whatsoever to Old, Dead Rangers. You can imagine how well that will go down.

I could be wrong, of course. I frequently am.

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.

[flyingrodent]

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.

Very useful, thanks. It's certainly an area I don't know much about.

[killingfloorman]

Thank you, very informative. Even if we leave aside the 'threats & intimidation' aspect, I bet the SFPA meetings about this were interesting. Weighing up the long term support of players as a whole versus pissing off the mob in blue.

[SS-18 ICBM]

Thanks for getting this back on topic flyingrodent.

Maybe the mods can change the title of this thread to "everyone just has a go at slagging each other off" now.

It's getting embarrassing that no-one can stay on topic. I only popped in for this development and 1 in 5 posts is actually about it.

You were late.

Can I be the first to note the tasty, tasty irony that 67 players are taking legal action against Rangers over wages?

If you go way back to this post and read from that time onwards you will catch up

Edited December 11, 2012 by SS-18 ICBM

[Dindeleux]

Dhenboy asking if I even contribute to the thread? Not really anymore, the thread has lost all relevance.

If you think wishing cancer on someone is contributing to the thread then I can only shake my head at your warped view on life.

[welshbairn]

Just lost an hour of my life waiting for Dave (leggoland) Leggatt to be interviewed on Talksport, as promised in his blog yesterday. What happened Dave, did security think you were some random scary homeless guy? Was hoping he'd sound like a bit like Chris Eubank..

[killingfloorman]

Just lost an hour of my life waiting for Dave (leggoland) Leggatt to be interviewed on Talksport, as promised in his blog yesterday. What happened Dave, did security think you were some random scary homeless guy? Was hoping he'd sound like a bit like Chris Eubank..

It'll all turn out to be the fault of 'them'. You know, the ones his good Presbyterian granny wouldnae have liked

[Bendarroch]

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

Good. Let free speech reign - and let it include the right to offend.

The recent, unchecked rise of the tide against free speech (and the absolutely fake outrage at terms often used to insult one another) in fitba circles is a genuine cause for concern.

Despite Claymores angry outburst last night, I genuinely hope he is not banned.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Dhenboy asking if I even contribute to the thread? Not really anymore, the thread has lost all relevance.

If you think wishing cancer on someone is contributing to the thread then I can only shake my head at your warped view on life.

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?

Edited December 11, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie

[Bendarroch]

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.

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

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

[TheLip69]

Certainly seems that way, even the ones named are denying it

Seems strange for the PFA to raise action on behalf of players without consulting them 1st, one could say almost vendictive

The PFA have had a complaint, they've investigated and, obviously, found the complaint valid. As they are enttled to do they have raised the case not just on the basis of the complainant but as a class action on behalf of all of their members who were involved. Some players may say they haven't agreed to it, but their agreement is neither needed nor required for the PFA to go ahead with the case. They are making the case on behalf of all their members, not just those affected at Rangers, but those who could be affected in future at Hearts, Dunfermline, or wherever.

[Bendarroch]

The PFA have had a complaint, they've investigated and, obviously, found the complaint valid. As they are enttled to do they have raised the case not just on the basis of the complainant but as a class action on behalf of all of their members who were involved. Some players may say they haven't agreed to it, but their agreement is neither needed nor required for the PFA to go ahead with the case. They are making the case on behalf of all their members, not just those affected at Rangers, but those who could be affected in future at Hearts, Dunfermline, or wherever.

I come to P&B (and other sites like it) for all my investment, accountancy, tax and legal advice these days.

[bennett]

The PFA have had a complaint, they've investigated and, obviously, found the complaint valid. As they are enttled to do they have raised the case not just on the basis of the complainant but as a class action on behalf of all of their members who were involved. Some players may say they haven't agreed to it, but their agreement is neither needed nor required for the PFA to go ahead with the case. They are making the case on behalf of all their members, not just those affected at Rangers, but those who could be affected in future at Hearts, Dunfermline, or wherever.

If my union took action on my behalf without my consent then i'd be having words with our rep pronto, not sure of all the ins and outs of this case so obviously i can't say too much.

[bennett]

Just lost an hour of my life waiting for Dave (leggoland) Leggatt to be interviewed on Talksport, as promised in his blog yesterday. What happened Dave, did security think you were some random scary homeless guy? Was hoping he'd sound like a bit like Chris Eubank..

Doink will be in turmoil at this news Celtic fans have lobbying talksport to get the interview cancelled, they must have succeeded.

No great loss anyway.

[Bairnforever1992]

Remember this? Green has no grounds to sue players says lawyer

CHARLES Green's threat to sue the Rangers players who refused to join his newco amounted to him seeking "modern slavery", according to Wil van Megen, the head of FifPro's legal department.

Green yesterday repeated his intention to take legal action against the players who walked out on the club this week – Steven Davis, Allan McGregor, Steven Naismith, Kyle Lafferty, Steven Whittaker, Sone Aluko, Jamie Ness, John Fleck and Rhys McCabe – and he said he would also pursue transfer fees from whichever club they join.

The chief executive described their actions as opportunistic while ex-player Sandy Jardine said they had shown "greed" in leaving the club as free agents instead of even staying for a short while and leaving for transfer fees.

Most of the players who have decided to stay will report for fitness tests at Murray Park as Rangers' pre-season training programme begins under coach Kenny McDowall this morning.

Carlos Bocanegra, Maurice Edu, Alejandro Bedoya and Dorin Goian will not turn up, having been given dispensation to arrive next week because of earlier international commitments, although it is believed all four will stay at the club. Neil Alexander, Kirk Broadfoot and Kyle Hutton will also stay. Fleck became the ninth player to confirm his departure yesterday. Juanma Ortiz was in talks with the club to secure a free transfer last night rather than necessarily objecting to his contract being transferred to the newco.

Despite Green's threat of court action, the players who have decided to leave have been advised that their departures are legally sound. Dutchman van Megen from FIFpro – the federation of international footballers' unions – said Green would inevitably lose any court cases against the departing players.

Van Megen worked with FIFPro and PFA Scotland on the Andy Webster freedom-of-contract case six years ago and said that because of TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings, Protection of Employment) legislation, the Rangers players could be entirely confident of winning in any legal challenge from Green.

"He has no grounds to do that," said van Megen. "Under the European Council [EU] directive, it's quite clear that it [TUPE] has to be implemented in all countries. The Council directive is in Scottish law. The Council directive itself has a specific clause that if you refuse to go to another entity then you are free to do so, because you are not obliged to stay against freedom of labour legislation. That has to be respected. Otherwise it would be modern slavery if you were obliged to move from one entity to another.

"There is no prospect of the players being frozen out of football [pending any court cases]. They are professional footballers and the labour agreement takes precedence at stages over football regulations.

"I won't be surprised if Rangers criticized do challenge the lawyers, because sometimes the issue pops up and clubs do challenge it. But I don't think it would be a wise decision. The players can be quite confident that they can't be forced to join the new entity."

Those who have walked out on the club were by Green. "I'm very, very disappointed of course, particularly so late in the proceedings," he said. "It is clear in the regulations: if someone has an objection they have to notify within 24 hours, this is nearly two weeks [since the transfer of contracts to his newco]. I think this is just opportunism. We will definitely challenge it, yes."

And now 67 players are going to sue Rangers. Sorry Charlie you are on a losing battle here.

How times just fy in just over 140 days.

[bennett]

Read back through the previous posts and i have to say that i'm not offended by anything that Claymores said or did, i've still no idea how he jumped to that conclusion though. The guy is usually up for a good verbal sparring match and i reckon that last night was just a bad night for the guy, thats all.

I hope he's back on posting about Rangers soon.

[Captain_Sensible]

I come to P&B (and other sites like it) for all my investment, accountancy, tax and legal advice these days.

Did you take Fast Action's advice to buy Northern Rock shares?

[Ken Fitlike]

Remember this? Green has no grounds to sue players says lawyer

CHARLES Green's threat to sue the Rangers players who refused to join his newco amounted to him seeking "modern slavery", according to Wil van Megen, the head of FifPro's legal department.

Green yesterday repeated his intention to take legal action against the players who walked out on the club this week – Steven Davis, Allan McGregor, Steven Naismith, Kyle Lafferty, Steven Whittaker, Sone Aluko, Jamie Ness, John Fleck and Rhys McCabe – and he said he would also pursue transfer fees from whichever club they join.

The chief executive described their actions as opportunistic while ex-player Sandy Jardine said they had shown "greed" in leaving the club as free agents instead pof even staying for a short while and leaving for transfer fees.

Most of the players who have decided to stay will report for fitness tests at Murray Park as Rangers' pre-season training programme begins under coach Kenny McDowall this morning.

Carlos Bocanegra, Maurice Edu, Alejandro Bedoya and Dorin Goian will not turn up, having been given dispensation to arrive next week because of earlier international commitments, although it is believed all four will stay at the club. Neil Alexander, Kirk Broadfoot and Kyle Hutton will also stay. Fleck became the ninth player to confirm his departure yesterday. Juanma Ortiz was in talks with the club to secure a free transfer last night rather than necessarily objecting to his contract being transferred to the newco.[/pcolor]

Despite Green's threat of court action, the players who have decided to leave have been advised that their departures are legally sound. Dutchman van Megen from FIFpro – the federation of international footballers' unions – said Green would inevitably lose any court cases against the departing players.

Van Megen worked with FIFPro and PFA Scotland on the Andy Webster freedom-of-contract case six years ago and said that because of TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings, Protection of Employment) legislation, the Rangers players could be entirely confident of winning in any legal challenge from Green.

"He has no grounds to do that," said van Megen. "Under the European Council [EU] directive, it's quite clear that it [TUPE] has to be implemented in all countries. The Council directive is in Scottish law. The Council directive itself has a specific clause that if you refuse to go to another entity then you are free to do so, because you are not obliged to stay against freedom of labour legislation. That has to be respected. Otherwise it would be modern slavery if you were obliged to move from one entity to another.

"There is no prospect of the players being frozen out of football [pending any court cases]. They are professional footballers and the labour agreement takes precedence at stages over football regulations.

"I won't be surprised if Rangers criticized do challenge the lawyers, because sometimes the issue pops up and clubs do challenge it. But I don't think it would be a wise decision. The players can be quite confident that they can't be forced to join the new entity."

Those who have walked out on the club were by Green. "I'm very, very disappointed of course, particularly so late in the proceedings," he said. "It is clear in the regulations: if someone has an objection they have to notify within 24 hours, this is nearly two weeks [since the transfer of contracts to his newco]. I think this is just opportunism. We will definitely challenge it, yes."

And now 67 players are going to sue Rangers. Sorry Charlie you are on a losing battle here.

How times just fy in just over 140 days.

140 days! Wow - time fair flies by. I could have sworn it was only 139.. hard to keep an ACCURATE track of anniversaries, I suppose...