Pull My Strings

Don't be so sensitive toots. If you think that Alex Thomson tweeting something that everyone already knows is an update then you crack on.

To be fair, a first year law student could have answered that one and anyone in this thread who didn't know that already really needs to read more and post less.

Short answer: yes; long answer: there may be wriggle room. The law says you can't dismiss an employee when TUPE applies unless it is for an economic, technical or organisational reason. I'm afraid I'd have no idea whether "Jesus Christ have you seen that cunt's wages!?" would qualify as an economic reason justifying dismissal.

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.

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).

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?

Behave yourself. At the time of contracting they had statutory authority to contract on behalf of the company which they did. Green paid £200k up front for that deal. It would certainly be open to creditors and/or the liquidator to challenge the contract (on what grounds, it's not clear) but there's currently a contract for sale. To suggest that they are dictating the terms of liquidation is just silly.

Well, they're free agents if they choose to be free agents. I'm sure a number will be happy enough to still be in job (the shite ones) Firstly, because BDO have no option without going to court.. There's a contract in place - you can't simply ignore it . Secondly, whatever happens to the sale of the assets, even if the contract with Green was reduced, the administrators would get paid first. I think it's worth bearing in mind that the purpose of s.216 is to protect individuals against being misled, it isn't to punish the business undertaking.

No.

That's better than the right one. If I've got a greenie left it's yours.

Pfft, the internet doesn't trouble itself with such trifling manners.

Hands up who spotted the deliberate mistake.

I'm an expert in this field although I can't comment on whether I'm a better lawyer than that other chap*. * I probably am since he's a Dundee fan.

Absolute nonsense. Anti discrimination legislation has now been consolidated in the Equality Act 2010. Perhaps you'd like to identify the provisions which would prevent the SFA from imposing this sanction. You'll need to identify a particular individual who has been discriminated against, the person acting in a discriminatory manner and the discriminatory act. If the act complained of is only indirectly discriminatory (ie. not the intended consequence) then you'll also need to show that the act was not in pursuit of a legitimate aim or disproportionate. I shan't hold my breath.

Yeah, there's definitely more fun to be had as that deal unravels.

Here you go. Enjoy. Ticketus Judgement The judgement was widely reported by media dimwits as a victory for Ticketus but that entirely missed the point. The key to the case was that Ticketus claimed that they had purchased a real right in future season ticket sales for matches played at Ibrox in the future and had placed this right in a trust. That might be possible under English law (Ticketus certainly thought so) but it's frankly nonsense under Scots law. The contract which Ticketus signed with Whyte/Rangers was prorogated to the English law but that only covers contract disputes. It doesn't cover property law and it doesn't include insolvency law. As a result of the judgement Ticketus stopped claiming to own the future season ticket revenues and accepted their position as bog standard, unsecured creditors.

I'd say he's the only guy to come out this mess with any credit. Did you see those lovely gnashers? Oooft!

I don't think so. It would be unnecessary to buy the shares at this stage and would introduce unnecessary complications. In any event, Rangers are in administration so, even if he bought the shares, they wouldn't give him any power. He was at the meeting in his capacity as representative of the prospective owners.

No, he's contracted with D&P to buy at a pre-agreed price but the contract is conditional on certain things happening. If the conditions are met then both parties are contractually obliged to go ahead with the deal. If the conditions are not met (for example, Rangers get punted out the league) then the deal is off and D&P have to look for another buyer. It's like me agreeing to buy your house on condition that you have good title to sell etc. If you do then I have to complete the purchase, if not I can walk away.

The Ticketus deal unravelled in the Court of Session a while ago. They thought they had bought property under English law (and English law is sufficiently different to give them a real right in future season ticket sales which isn't possible under Scots law). Otherwise it would be inconceivable that an apparently savvy company would leave itself so hopelessly exposed. Unfortunately for them they just took really shit legal advice prior to the deal.

Green doesn't own the club. His offer to buy the club is conditional on the CVA being agreed. Otherwise he keeps his (two) quid in his pocket and instead buys the assets. There's no point buying the company without a CVA because of the mahoosive debts. Bear in mind that he can't just buy the company and then transfer the assets to himself (or another company). That would be hugely illegal.

Not really. Any creditor can challenge the actions of the administrators at any point ( Section 74, Schedule 16 to the Enterprise Act 2002 ). That's not really an appeal but, yes, it can be challenged. There's no question that Rangers own Ibrox, Murray Park, the carpark etc but previously those assets were secured by a floating charge held by the bank as security against the £18m debt. That debt has now been repaid and the security assigned to one of Whyte's companies. However, as we all know, securities are merely ancillary real rights and exist only to the extent of the underlying debt. There is no underlying debt and therefore no effective security. This is all in the public domain, chief. Do try to keep up.

He's buying the company for two quid from Craig Whyte on condition that a CVA is agreed failing which he isn't buying the company and will instead purchase the assets. If a CVA is agreed then he will loan money to the company to pay for it. It's all strictly kosher (within those narrow parameters - whether Rangers fans agree when he starts to take his money back out again is another matter). As far as D&P borrowing money goes they can't increase the indebtedness of the club but I don't think there's anything to stop them refinancing existing debts (essentially turning a bazillion pounds of debt into an £8.5m debt). In any event this is the best offer on the table and therefore the best chance of creditors getting a return (in the opinion of D&P and any one of those creditors is entitled to challenge that in court) and therefore falls within the scope of the administrators' powers. In short, the only people who should be worrying about the proposed new debt are Rangers fans.

Your understanding is wrong, I'm afraid. The Court of Session have found that the SFA's decision is ultra vires and therefore of no effect. If the SFA try to ignore it (which they won't, not least because they would be in contempt of court) then further court action will follow which the SFA will lose. The SFA's only option here is to accept the judgement or appeal against it, they can't just ignore it.

Come on then, Matlock. Blind me with your science.