knapdarloch

Not always (in the same way that the word black isn't always racist); but I think you are a bigot, yes - otherwise you'd not have used the term in the way you did. The fact that you don't think it is bigoted when you use it in a derogatory fashion ends the discussion for me, and is merely indicative of why you and your likes just don't get it. And, it seems, never will.

"Timmy"? Is this an example of the bigotry that Chuckles Green was blaming for Sevco not getting to play with the big boys any more?

I see it the same way you do - the trouble is that the SFA are withholding the registration of a player who wants to go to an English side. Sevco don't hold the registrations, the SFA do (and it looks like they want to keep them so that Sevco can have them). I'm assuming, of course, the player concerned took advantage of the TUPE regulations and did not transfer to Newco. Indeed there should be no need for the courts, and hopefully FIFA tell the SFA to allow the English registration. If they don't (or if they don't know about TUPE), then I can see the courts as the only option (and they'd surely favour the players/PFA/buying club). At present I'm seeing the situation as a player who has opted not to transfer to the Newco being told by the SFA that the only team he CAN sign for is Newco.

The trouble with this is that the players contracts are governed by TUPE, which FIFA have no governance over - and neither do the SFA. They're going to find themselves embarrassed in the UK lawcourts again.

PFA Scotland Solicitor Margaret Gribbon of Bridge Litigation has today written to all English Premier League and Championship Clubs responding to Charles Green’s letter to them dated 29th June 2012. Ms Gribbon stated “I have been furnished with a copy of Mr Green’s letter sent to English Clubs in their top two divisions and consider that it amounts to an attempt to deliberately misrepresent my clients position. I have therefore today sent a detailed letter to the Clubs setting out the facts and repeating our very firm legal view that Mr Green’s allegations of breach of contract are entirely without legal merit. My clients are free agents and I am pleased to note that several Premier League Clubs have already made applications to the SFA for International Transfer Certificates indicating that they attach little weight to Mr Green’s assertion that Sevco is entitled to seek damages for breach of contract” “Furthermore it should also be noted that the SFA has confirmed that in the event of there being a dispute over registration the matter will be referred to FIFA. We can confirm that the SFA has today rejected to issue the registration for one of our clients to an English Premier League Club. The Club in question disputes the rejection and will now write to FIFA seeking their intervention. We expect a speedy response from FIFA.” The SFA are complicit in this, up to their fucking eyeballs, I see. I hope FIFA tear them a new one. Or two.

Because, once this fiasco is over...

Seriously - Where the f**k is Chick Young? How to Disappear Completely. That there That's not me I go Where I please I walk through walls I float down the Liffey I'm not here This isn't happening I'm not here I'm not here In a little while I'll be gone The moment's already passed Yeah it's gone And I'm not here This isn't happening I'm not here I'm not here Strobe lights and blown speakers Fireworks and hurricanes I'm not here This isn't happening I'm not here I'm not here

Indeed. What passes is a share of the Company, which is a one sixteeth part of The Scottish Premier League Limited. No more, no less. If history or anything else is passing it's not from this method.

If you are involved in a transfer that qualifies for TUPE protection you should be guaranteed that your: job transfers over to the new company employment terms and conditions transfer continuity of employment is maintained Source. Hmm. Should be. And that's the Government talking.

This is why lawyers and judges can get different results from the same data! However... A 90% vote is required when 2© any alteration to the authorised or issued share capital of the Company (other than as a result of the transfer of any share in the Company made in accordance with these Articles and/or the Rules); Within these very Articles we have: 11. Except where the transfer of a Share is occasioned by the promotion of an association football club from and relegation of a Club to the SFL, the approval of the Members in General Meeting shall be required before the transfer of any Share shall be registered and the Members may, in their absolute discretion, refuse to approve the registration of the transfer of any such Share. which in turn is governed by Article 2m (66% vote required) 2(m) any matter which in terms of the Rules requires to be determined by the Company in General Meeting. Hence if Article 11 applies then I read it to be 66%, but I'm hoping it matters not a jot. p.s. Well done Dundee Utd this evening - Utd fans; bask in that warm glow!!!!!

Having read the Articles (and they're as full of holes as Rab Nesbitt's simmet) I'd say that Article 11 states that transfer can go ahead with approval of members (taken to be 66%). There is mention in Article 14 where a Qualified Resolution (90%) is required to ask an administrator (or member) to hand over the share, but I'm taking that to mean it would only be used if the member was deliberately withholding a share. If Article 11 wasn't deemed to be the correct vehicle for this transfer then certainly it would require a 90% vote (Article 2c) Bedtime Reading

f**k's sake, min! Are you selectively deaf? Your fucking club paid SALARIES through this scheme. Why the f**k would anyone think their salary was a loan? They told the fucking employees (see Mr Billy Bigmouth Dodds) that tax was coming off. They didn't pass the fucking tax to the HMRC (see tax case). The side letters do NOT refer to a loan never to be paid back. (you're going to have to trust me on that one ) If you honestly think that what they did was above board, then can you explain why the f**k every company and business in the whole brown and unpleasant land don't pay their employees in exactly the same way? At least admit it's just some after-the-event weasling attempt to loophole their way out of something they knew full well to be dodgy. Do yourself a favour and look in the mirror whilst repeating this to yourself. "The. EBTs. were. not. fucking. loans." Give yourself a slap at each fullstop, maybe it'll get through. If it doesn't work, at least have the grace to offer every P+B member a loan of a tenner which we'll pay back once the last EBT is reimbursed.

Just getting my head around the "punishments" that The Club formerly Known As Rangers have been given. a) 10 point deduction for going into administration, (which even arch-apologist Cockwomble said was meaningless). b)£160000 for three rule breaches (none of which will EVER be paid). Of course the 10 points wasn't a punishment as such, it was merely an automatic result. The three fines were all as a result of appointing Whyte, a banned director. I'm discounting any exclusion from European competition as this is simply a failure to meet qualifying status, not a punishment. They might as well greet about not being able to compete in the African Cup of Nations. So, 10 points away - NOT A PUNISHMENT Fines which won't be paid - NOT A PUNISHMENT We've still got all the tax stuff, all the EBT stuff, (all of which is much more serious than the above),not to mention the bullying, and incitement by McCoist et al, Can we finally (and I'm thinking of you Traynor) end this pish about them having been punished enough? (Source: SFA Disciplinary Outcome,)