Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Ronnie Esplin@RonnieEsplin PFA refuse to comment on Rangers 67 story. A union not wishing to put forward claims/aims of its members seems strange, on the face of it.

Expand

? That the writer of Rangers books? Don't see it as that strange as it is ongoing legal thang and being like a major class action type shizz be hard to consult all 67 afore giving statements. An' 'at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ronnie Esplin@RonnieEsplin PFA refuse to comment on Rangers 67 story. A union not wishing to put forward claims/aims of its members seems strange, on the face of it.

Expand

A Union which publicised more than they already have would be serving its members extremely poorly. Their duties are to their members, not to the gutter press. No doubt Jabba will provide enough crap to fill the back pages and have Tedi et al proving how hard-done by the gers are.

Given Charlie's obviously unblemished record over TUPE and employment law in general, this could get interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Union which publicised more than they already have would be serving its members extremely poorly. Their duties are to their members, not to the gutter press. No doubt Jabba will provide enough crap to fill the back pages and have Tedi et al proving how hard-done by the gers are.

Given Charlie's obviously unblemished record over TUPE and employment law in general, this could get interesting.

Indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prospectus read paragraph 105

Certain players of RFC 2012 plc (Alan McGregor, Kyle Lafferty, Rhys McCabe, Sone Aluko,

Steven Davis, John Fleck, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker and Jamie Ness) purported to object to the transfer of their contracts of employment to RFCL pursuant to TUPE. RFCL maintains that these purported objections were incompetent and that the players instead unilaterally terminated

their contracts of employment in an unlawful manner. Arbitration proceedings under Article 99 of the Articles of Association of the SFA were commenced on 5 July 2012 in the name of RFC 2012 plc. Any damages due would be payable to RFCL. RFCL was not a member of the SFA at that time and therefore the reference had to be made by RFC 2012 plc. RFC 2012 plc accepts that it has no financial interest in the outcome. Discussions took place with representatives of some of the players and agreements have now been reached with Steven Davis, John Fleck and Rhys McCabe.

Representatives acting on behalf of the remaining players have challenged RFCL's rights to participate in the process in any capacity given

that it was not a member of the SFA at the time of the alleged breaches of contract and the date of the reference to the SFA under Article 99. A preliminary hearing has been fixed for 7 January 2013

at which these jurisdictional challenges will be determined. If RFCL is successful at this hearing, then the claims against the remaining players will proceed to a full hearing. At this point it is anticipate that such a full hearing will take place in March or April of 2013. Preliminary advice

from senior counsel is that RFCL's prospects of winning these preliminary arguments are good. However, it is not currently possible to quantify these claims in full.

Hi Bairn - I referred to that above - it is basically a statement within the prospectus that they might have income from chasing players. I asked above if Chuckie Cheese will how issue an addendum to the prospectus admitting they are being chased for a helluva lot of money by 67 players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Union which publicised more than they already have would be serving its members extremely poorly. Their duties are to their members, not to the gutter press. No doubt Jabba will provide enough crap to fill the back pages and have Tedi et al proving how hard-done by the gers are.

Given Charlie's obviously unblemished record over TUPE and employment law in general, this could get interesting.

It appears that atleast several of their members know nothing about this, not exactly serving their member well is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that atleast several of their members know nothing about this, not exactly serving their member well is it?

Speaking of members, where's Tedi and the rest of the 'bunch'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P&Bers appear to have found their balls again, look at them all scurrying out of the woodwork.

Is this you taking the pish again just cos I had testicular cancer and you suck Jardine's balls by posting a really inane and annoying thread which really annoyed cancer sufferers? not nice Benny the ball

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clay when read this again in the morning (once you've sobered up), i'm sure it'll give you the motivation you need to seek help.

Remember it's an illness.

Feck sakes you need a punch from a person at my Clinical Oncology - retract that before I complain - it's just not funny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Teamtalk

Rangers have revealed they face a potential employment tribunal involving 67 players.

The matter relates to an alleged failure to inform and consult players over the transfer of contracts from the former club, which has since been liquidated, to the new club.

In their share issue prospectus, Rangers declared that PFA Scotland had raised the claims and that they would "robustly" defend themselves.

And the prospectus also states that former Ibrox players Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised constructive dismissal claims.

The trio were among nine players who refused to transfer their contracts over after Charles Green bought the club's assets in June.

The prospectus says: "PFA Scotland has raised an employment tribunal claim against RFCL (The Rangers Football Club Limited) on behalf of 67 unnamed players at the employment tribunal in Glasgow.

"The claim relates to an alleged failure on behalf of RFC 2012 plc to inform and consult with affected employees prior to the TUPE transfer on 14 June 2012.

"Both RFCL and Rangers 2012 plc have been cited and compensation can be awarded on a joint and several basis. RFCL's advisers have taken issue with PFA's right to bring such a claim on behalf of the players.

"Senior counsel's advice has been taken on the matter and a robust opinion has been given to the effect that PFA Scotland has no locus or standing to raise such a claim.

"If RFCL's preliminary challenge to the bringing of this claim is successful that will be the end of the matter. It is not currently possible to quantify these claims in full."

Night Night sleep tight bears, don't let the bugs bite. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...