knapdarloch
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by knapdarloch
-
-
Timmy Thomson wetting his knickers over auld David Leggat, what a chump
"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?
0 -
As far as I can see, the players have no legal obligation to TUPE to Sevco Rangers. Many of them chose not to.
The complication is the transfer of the football registrations, because Green tried to buy them for Sevco Rangers as assets. The dispute will be to determine whether Sevco Rangers have any right to hold on to the registrations of the new players.
As such, there should be no reason for the legal courts to be involved. The legal courts would favour the players/PFA/buying clubs.
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.
0 -
I think the SFA are just happy to defer this decision to FIFA. Better to let someone else make the decision.
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.
0 -
http://pfascotland.c...tcs-to-players/
Mr Green fecked up big style , I take back what i said earlier aboiut him
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.
0 -
How on earth does this moving the goalposts act as a deterrent to other clubs not to do something similar to rangers.
Because, once this fiasco is over...
0 -
-
Tempted to ask for a pm to hear the big FF secret, feart that I'll be sniffed out as a terrier in the process.
0 -
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
0 -
On a point aside from the voting rules this quote here proves what I said earlier in the thread, a transfer of share in the SPL does not clarify that there is a continuation of Rangers by passing their share to Sevco. The name, history, club etc etc is not transferred with the share otherwise Ross C*unty could rename themselves Dunfermline Athletic because the Pars share was transferred to them.
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.
0 -
With regard to the TUPE rules, is there an obligationfor the newco to offer the same terms to employees? Cause if so, I quite fancy as many players as possible declaring their loyalty and signing on. For the third division. On those wages.
We'd get to do this all over again next year.
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
Hmm. Should be. And that's the Government talking.
0 -
That was the way i read it, the only mention of transferring shares in articles 2h to 2n is to make exception to it and directing towards article 2c.
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!!!!!
0 -
All it says is that a transfer of share outwith promotion/relegation requires a general meeting, but there is no mention of transferring shares under ordinary resolution votes, so it requires a rule change.
There is specific exception made (under ordinary resolution votes) that votes on changes to authorised share issues requires a qualified resolution vote (90%).
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)
0 -
i hope any of the remedials that were arguing with me about what constitutes a loan are watching bbc news right now.
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.
0 -
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,)
0 -
-
One one home game against Club 12 for the Mighty Saints next season.
Another reason why it's not important for us to keep the Undead.
I'm presuming Club 12 will finish in the bottom 6, of course!
(And since it's the New Year derby....)
0 -
beaks can have as small balls as they like, the decision is with the 12 SPL member clubs if they reject it moves to the 30 SFL member clubs
they cant tell them how to vote
I'm counting them all as beaks!
That's the closest I could find to a judge, btw!
0 -
Here's a thing.
I'm heartily fed up of the financial argument being used to keep the cheats in the SPL.
Time after time, apologists (ha!) trot out the line about Scottish Football failing without their money.
The absolute worst case-scenario (for the H'newco anyway) I can imagine the beaks having the balls for will be an SFL3 entry.
In that case the same money will stay withing football, but some will be distributed among the clubs who probably need it the most, and will allow a more competitive game overall. After all, the fans don't do walking away.
Of course I'd have them taken outside and shot in front of their families, but then again I am Jeremy Clarkson.
And on that bombshell...
0 -
He has a £2m wage bill coming at the end of the month and no other income, his investor list is getting shorter and nothing will be concrete for a few weeks. if he can get to he start of the season with mccoist in charge then he will be ok but that is £4m of working capital away.
This is why Walter's group have appeared the minute Green's deal was finalised. His £6m will be the warchest. This has been carved up some long time ago, making sure the Administrators get paid in full, all creditors get the square root of f**k all, and "the poor shareholders" Green lamented today get the same.
Only by appearing this afternoon can Walter try to appease those investors, and deflect the "blame" to everyone outside their cancerous establishment.
Let nobody be fooled; the cunning, cheating, gloating, hideous boil on the arsecheek of football that they are.
-1 -
So, Green has bought the club for exactly the same as the admin fees.
(The CVA was risible, clearly never going to pass - nor did they want it to)
That's a done deal.
Suddenly The Cardigan comes along with another £6 million.
Green says this goes to The Rangers bank account. I take that to be the H'newco.
That sounds like a warchest to me (and they're going to need one just to survive, far less buy players).
Expect plenty other money to appear depending on what division they play in.
Anyone else of the opinion that this has been the plan from the start?
Please let the Chairmen see through this and make sure their cunning plan fails.
0 -
Pretty sure this is connected with the so called "nuclear" revelations expected to come out. Presumably RTC is still looking for evidence to back it up.
Was that about Cardigan Smith or Wiggy Smith?
Has anything ever come out about banks pressuring clubs on behalf of The Dead to sell them players or have loans called in?
0 -
What does the bottom one say... "Rangers fans say no to Li...."
Livingston. They are totally against any club that calls in the Administrators.
0 -
Say no to Newco. Let's hope they get their wish.
0 -
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
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.