bennett Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I am just stating facts there is nothing pedantic about it, the whole ethos of a Union is strength in numbers that's why, more often than not, a Union will take a class action on behalf of all their members affected by a particular problem. It's, more or less, standard practice and surely it's what you sign up for when you join a union. If you dont like it leave, join Unison, or someone else,dont complain when your Union is doing it's best for you and the other members. Regardless of some players opinions, it isn't their decision. They handed that decision to their Union when they signed up. It's clearly not doing whats best for it's members here otherwise a large % the players in question would not be criticising the SPFA. I've always been informed of any action my unions taken which affects me and fellow workers and recieve regular meetings and updates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Apparently eighteen players within the club want no part in this,as well as that Naismith,Whittaker,Aluko,McGregor,Fleck and Wylde are reportedly not interested in this either,if this is true it sort of dilutes the credibility of the SPFA and indeed Fraser Wishart. "Bennett" The majority of palyers involved have spoken out against this and i haven't read anything about any players supporting this action. You were expecting any of them to say they were supporting it? If the SPFA believe their members have been treated badly by The Rangers it would be remiss of them not to raise this action. As fully paid up members of the SPFA these players have accepted the fact that the Union will act on their behalf. The SPFA would lose more credibility by ignoring any infraction of the rules. i really dont know what anyone is getting worked up over, this will come and go and wont affect The Rangers anymore than anything else has or will. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I still kind of don't either. Could you explain to me WRK? At least I'll listen. Mad Capsule, either refer back to my posts late yesterday morning, or I'll PM you when I get back from work tonight. Duty calls, an all that... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 "Bennett" The majority of palyers involved have spoken out against this and i haven't read anything about any players supporting this action. You were expecting any of them to say they were supporting it? If the SPFA believe their members have been treated badly by The Rangers it would be remiss of them not to raise this action. As fully paid up members of the SPFA these players have accepted the fact that the Union will act on their behalf. The SPFA would lose more credibility by ignoring any infraction of the rules. i really dont know what anyone is getting worked up over, this will come and go and wont affect The Rangers anymore than anything else has or will. I'm cetainly not getting worked up about this,not in any way whatsoever. However it seems a bit strange to say the least that not one individual has acknowledged having known anything about this action,whether the player is still at the club or not. Also as fully paid up members the player has the right to decline representation on this action on their behalf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Hasn't it been confirmed that no players have been named so this whole 'the players are against it' line can probably be put to bed. The union represents players, when they see players rights being trampled over by an unscrupulous employer they will step in on behalf of all their members, even if it is just to draw a line in the sand should any other employers of their members be inclined to adopt similar unscrupulous practices in the future. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Mad Capsule, either refer back to my posts late yesterday morning, or I'll PM you when I get back from work tonight. Duty calls, an all that... Transalted as -- The librarian has just told me to get f**k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Capsule Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Transalted as -- The librarian has just told me to get f**k "Duty calls". Or he needs a dump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 "Duty calls". Or he needs a dump. Find a paper and skive for 20 minutes, sorted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Hasn't it been confirmed that no players have been named so this whole 'the players are against it' line can probably be put to bed. The union represents players, when they see players rights being trampled over by an unscrupulous employer they will step in on behalf of all their members, even if it is just to draw a line in the sand should any other employers of their members be inclined to adopt similar unscrupulous practices in the future. The SPFA have the right to raise this Protective Award action in the unions' own name but they are then duty bound to inform each individual that they are representing in this action that they have raised it. The individual then has the right to decline representation in this action as an individual and inform the union to withdraw their name from the collective action. It appears that the SPFA failed to notify the members involved about this action. It says a lot though that they are prepared to drop this action if the SFA breach of contract proceedings are dropped against their members,Naismith,Whittaker,McGregor,etc. For what it's worth i believe the players had the right not to transfer over under TUPE and were free to move on as they did but i would have liked to have seen them transfer over then get a move,therefore ensuring the club received some sort of recompense. Only my opinion though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 i would have liked to have seen them transfer over then get a move,therefore ensuring the club received some sort of recompense. Only my opinion though. its a valid opinion IF you have bought into chuckie cheese and his continuation theory, which you clearly have. These players felt the club died. They therefore felt no loyalty to the new club.You cant condemn them for holding a different opinion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 The SPFA have the right to raise this Protective Award action in the unions' own name but they are then duty bound to inform each individual that they are representing in this action that they have raised it. Are you not contradicting yourself there Youngsy lad? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Are you not contradicting yourself there Youngsy lad? That isn't uncommon for Youngsy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Find a paper and skive for 20 minutes, sorted. or go on scotland tonight for 20 minutes.it all boils down to shoite at the end of the day. nice of charles to say that 9 million is nothing compared with what needs to be done to bring ibrox upto standard.five star my arse going by that statement last night.wheres the money for improvements coming from. shares? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 or go on scotland tonight for 20 minutes.it all boils down to shoite at the end of the day. nice of charles to say that 9 million is nothing compared with what needs to be done to bring ibrox upto standard.five star my arse going by that statement last night.wheres the money for improvements coming from. shares? Ticketus/octopus obviously. Thats the 17mill that he claimed was institutional investment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Are you not contradicting yourself there Youngsy lad? Not at all,they have the right to raise it as a union but they must inform anyone on the action raised who then have the right to inform the union that they are willing or not willing to have their name on the collective action. As such it appears that many members haven't been informed of such action. A union is still answerable to their members and have a duty to keep them informed on any action that affects each and evry one of them,something that it apppears the SPFA have failed to do on this occasion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 But I think the whole point in raising it in the unions own name is that there are no players named on it???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 its a valid opinion IF you have bought into chuckie cheese and his continuation theory, which you clearly have. These players felt the club died. They therefore felt no loyalty to the new club.You cant condemn them for holding a different opinion I haven't condemned them in any way,what i have stated that irrespective of their views on the club continuity they had an opportunity to give something back to the club,whether they view things differently or not,they proclaimed themselves Rangers supporters so in that respect surely they must have felt a loyalty to the support and the ongoing welfare of the club. As far as i'm concerned they have been given poor advice,no doubt from their agent,about the status of the club,because whatever the argument there has been no definitive decision of continuity of the club from a legal aspect,whereas there seems to have been from the SFA and SFL after transference of membership. Very significant that the only Rangers fans,Naismith,McGregor, that viewed the club differently from the every other Rangers fan,including players and former players,are those that gained financially from this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 But I think the whole point in raising it in the unions own name is that there are no players named on it???? So for whos' benefit are they raising the Protective Award action for? They can't bring an action without informing the members involved in the action. Who are they representing then? If not players,not one btw have endorsed this action,then who. After all they are prepared to drop this if the SFA breach of contract proceedings are dropped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) I haven't condemned them in any way,what i have stated that irrespective of their views on the club continuity they had an opportunity to give something back to the club,whether they view things differently or not,they proclaimed themselves Rangers supporters so in that respect surely they must have felt a loyalty to the support and the ongoing welfare of the club. As far as i'm concerned they have been given poor advice,no doubt from their agent,about the status of the club,because whatever the argument there has been no definitive decision of continuity of the club from a legal aspect,whereas there seems to have been from the SFA and SFL after transference of membership. Very significant that the only Rangers fans,Naismith,McGregor, that viewed the club differently from the every other Rangers fan,including players and former players,are those that gained financially from this. People proclaim themselves to be 'this n that' every day, but that doesn't mean that they are speaking truthfully. Talk doesn't cook rice. ~Chinese Proverb Edited December 12, 2012 by SS-18 ICBM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I haven't condemned them in any way,what i have stated that irrespective of their views on the club continuity they had an opportunity to give something back to the club,whether they view things differently or not,they proclaimed themselves Rangers supporters so in that respect surely they must have felt a loyalty to the support and the ongoing welfare of the club. As far as i'm concerned they have been given poor advice,no doubt from their agent,about the status of the club,because whatever the argument there has been no definitive decision of continuity of the club from a legal aspect,whereas there seems to have been from the SFA and SFL after transference of membership. Very significant that the only Rangers fans,Naismith,McGregor, that viewed the club differently from the every other Rangers fan,including players and former players,are those that gained financially from this. Tedi will tear you a new one when he reads the stuff in bold! With regards to the players and their attitude, you could say, if anyone should be believed it would be them.... they were right in the middle of it, facing the uncertainty every day, experiencing first hand what was going on instead of relying on propoganda fed by the press... they must have asked around the club about if this was a continuation or not... the fact they believe it not to be.... i'd be more liable to believe them, than believe rangers fans who have been force fed continuity by the press. look back at the stories at the time when they left.... look at the build up and the amount of stories in the press that said the club was dead.... look at the fans banners that said no to liquidation as it would mean the death of the club.... the belief then was the club has dead... what i would like to know is.... who was the first person to start the ball rolling on continuity.... because everyone from green, the fans, the press all said the club was dead. EVERYONE! all of a sudden, round about July the story started appearing everywhere that they were the same club. Now in no way am i suggesting that the new club thing had to be nipped in the bud, otherwise season ticket sales might not have been so strong.... by the way is it a coincidence that when the press started pushing continuity and the talk of dead clubs was halted that a new batch of rangers fans profiles were created on here? i just find it strange that of all the fans who were vocal about saying no to liquidation, the club was too big to die.... none of them are to be found, anywhere in the western world! 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.