WeeHectorPar Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Why do you use the terms "bigots" and "bigotry"? Your use of these terms would suggest that you think that most people in Scotland who want to see Rangers die do so out of some sort of bigotry against Protestantism? I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of supporters of so called diddy clubs aren't Catholics. Indeed, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority aren't religious in the slightest. How on earth would "bigotry" be a motivation for these people to see Rangers die? What is shameful is wanting to see a club like Rangers continue in existence. A "club"! How dare you! Rangers are an "institution", part of the establishment. They cannot be allowed to die. They're just like opera. They must survive for the benefit of the top people even though none of them pay to watch them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Except you can't transfer employees to a newco. They will have to negotiate new contracts with employees of the oldco. You sure about that? The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions. It's as if their employment contracts had originally been made with the new employer. Their continuity of service and any other rights are all preserved. Both old and new employers are required to inform and consult employees affected directly or indirectly by the transfer.Which transfers are covered?TUPE applies when an undertaking or part of it is transferred from one employer to another, eg: •where all or part of a sole trader's business or partnership is sold or otherwise transferred •where a company, or part of it, is bought or acquired by another (if the second company buys or acquires the assets and then runs the business rather than acquiring the shares only) •where two companies cease to exist and combine to form a third •where a contract to provide goods or services is transferred in circumstances which amount to the transfer of a business or undertaking to a new employer. TUPE can apply regardless of the size of the transferred undertaking, ie from large organisations employing thousands of employees to small businesses like a village shop with one assistant. Which transfers are not covered?TUPE does not apply to: •transfers by share take-over because, when a company's shares are sold to new shareholders, there is no transfer of the business: the same company continues to be the employer •transfer of assets only (eg the sale of equipment alone wouldn't be covered but the sale of a going concern including equipment would be covered) •transfer of a contract to provide goods or services where this doesn't involve the transfer of a business or part of a business •transfers of undertakings situated outside the UK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Neil McCann on Sky there saying the £80 million odd Rangers owed under Moonbean was 'sustainable'. It was only when Whyte too over than things went pear-shaped. Now there are 2 issues I have with that statement straight away - 1. It clearly isn't sustainable Neil, as the club are in administration, that means a third party team have to takeover and try to broker a deal to pay the creditors what they are owed as the retards who employed you couldn't handle their finances and cut their cloth accordingly. Which brings me to my second point. 2. Did you have 2 contracts like the guys who played along side you Neil? You know the one Moonbeam, who you have defended to the hilt in all of this (probably out of blind loyalty) was offering you as you and your colleagues swash-buckled your way to winning trophy upon trophy against teams who scrimped and saved to be able to put a team on the park? I think he meant that the debt was "self-sustaining"; just like Rangers, debts don't do walking away 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Algorithms Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Out of the country for the bigotfest for at least half of the day! How joyous! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 You sure about that? This is all about change of ownership of a company. It has nothing to do with the transfer of assets from oldco to newco. Which transfers are not covered?TUPE does not apply to:•transfers by share take-over because, when a company's shares are sold to new shareholders, there is no transfer of the business: the same company continues to be the employer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 I take it all the worthwhile forms of protest being discussed on Rangers Media have been taking place at the game but SPL and SFA partners Sky have blatantly ignored them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 29, 2012 Author Share Posted April 29, 2012 I take it all the worthwhile forms of protest being discussed on Rangers Media have been taking place at the game but SPL and SFA partners Sky have blatantly ignored them? The entire Rangers team have chosen to protest by refusing to mark Charlie Mulgrew at corners. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostFaceKillie Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 I take it all the worthwhile forms of protest being discussed on Rangers Media have been taking place at the game but SPL and SFA partners Sky have blatantly ignored them? Indeed - did they do the thing where they all pretended to be shot ten minutes in and lay as though dead? That was a solid idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBR Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Breaking news! A new bidder has stepped in with more than enough funding to wipe out the debt and allow RFC to continue "as a going concern capable of competing for Scottish and European honours for decades to come". The rarely-interviewed individual stated that "Rangers' global reach and activities match my own ambitions and current portfolios". This story looks like coming to end soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantoms-livi-lass Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Indeed - did they do the thing where they all pretended to be shot ten minutes in and lay as though dead? That was a solid idea. Not yet, I was looking forward to that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 roumors still on twitter from today that celtic are gathering support for move to english 1st devision? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 roumors still on twitter from today that celtic are gathering support for move to english 1st devision? Unless said support is from UEFA (or the FA, who have categorically stated oppostion to it) then it is utterly pointless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 1335702854[/url]' post='6184949']roumors still on twitter from today that celtic are gathering support for move to english 1st devision? Yeah, the Chief Execs of all those clubs will definitely be supportive of that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 roumors still on twitter from today that celtic are gathering support for move to english 1st devision? roumors are rumours , ie pish. Possible Orc talk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Oh f**k it'll be r*sh next. Yes, A Farewell to Kings(billy boys) or Permanent Waves(Goodbye) I'll get my coat then Fair enuff, they've had Something For Nothing for years, and now we'll find out how it goes In The End. KTID ps. Hope it's before Bastille Day! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 This is all about change of ownership of a company. It has nothing to do with the transfer of assets from oldco to newco. Thats exactly what it is. I did it myself when I started my company and took over the assets and staff of the old company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Gordon Strachan - Rangers can't be killed off. He suggests they say "Yes, we made a mistake, now let's move on" ffs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 roumors are rumours , ie pish. Possible Orc talk. its on transfer roumors twitter page. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Tattiescone Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Strachan again, suggesting that Celtic will spend less if Rangers die. "They might only spend £3m a year buying players from Scottish clubs instead of £8m a year" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 Tell all the **** you know 2012 is as far as they'll go, you can tell wee aluko he'll play for a newco, and his contract is pay as you go 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.