bennett Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Mad Capsule, either refer back to my posts late yesterday morning, or I'll PM you when I get back from work tonight. Duty calls, an all that... Transalted as -- The librarian has just told me to get f**k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Capsule Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Transalted as -- The librarian has just told me to get f**k "Duty calls". Or he needs a dump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 "Duty calls". Or he needs a dump. Find a paper and skive for 20 minutes, sorted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Hasn't it been confirmed that no players have been named so this whole 'the players are against it' line can probably be put to bed. The union represents players, when they see players rights being trampled over by an unscrupulous employer they will step in on behalf of all their members, even if it is just to draw a line in the sand should any other employers of their members be inclined to adopt similar unscrupulous practices in the future. The SPFA have the right to raise this Protective Award action in the unions' own name but they are then duty bound to inform each individual that they are representing in this action that they have raised it. The individual then has the right to decline representation in this action as an individual and inform the union to withdraw their name from the collective action. It appears that the SPFA failed to notify the members involved about this action. It says a lot though that they are prepared to drop this action if the SFA breach of contract proceedings are dropped against their members,Naismith,Whittaker,McGregor,etc. For what it's worth i believe the players had the right not to transfer over under TUPE and were free to move on as they did but i would have liked to have seen them transfer over then get a move,therefore ensuring the club received some sort of recompense. Only my opinion though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 i would have liked to have seen them transfer over then get a move,therefore ensuring the club received some sort of recompense. Only my opinion though. its a valid opinion IF you have bought into chuckie cheese and his continuation theory, which you clearly have. These players felt the club died. They therefore felt no loyalty to the new club.You cant condemn them for holding a different opinion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 The SPFA have the right to raise this Protective Award action in the unions' own name but they are then duty bound to inform each individual that they are representing in this action that they have raised it. Are you not contradicting yourself there Youngsy lad? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Are you not contradicting yourself there Youngsy lad? That isn't uncommon for Youngsy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Find a paper and skive for 20 minutes, sorted. or go on scotland tonight for 20 minutes.it all boils down to shoite at the end of the day. nice of charles to say that 9 million is nothing compared with what needs to be done to bring ibrox upto standard.five star my arse going by that statement last night.wheres the money for improvements coming from. shares? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 or go on scotland tonight for 20 minutes.it all boils down to shoite at the end of the day. nice of charles to say that 9 million is nothing compared with what needs to be done to bring ibrox upto standard.five star my arse going by that statement last night.wheres the money for improvements coming from. shares? Ticketus/octopus obviously. Thats the 17mill that he claimed was institutional investment 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Are you not contradicting yourself there Youngsy lad? Not at all,they have the right to raise it as a union but they must inform anyone on the action raised who then have the right to inform the union that they are willing or not willing to have their name on the collective action. As such it appears that many members haven't been informed of such action. A union is still answerable to their members and have a duty to keep them informed on any action that affects each and evry one of them,something that it apppears the SPFA have failed to do on this occasion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 But I think the whole point in raising it in the unions own name is that there are no players named on it???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 its a valid opinion IF you have bought into chuckie cheese and his continuation theory, which you clearly have. These players felt the club died. They therefore felt no loyalty to the new club.You cant condemn them for holding a different opinion I haven't condemned them in any way,what i have stated that irrespective of their views on the club continuity they had an opportunity to give something back to the club,whether they view things differently or not,they proclaimed themselves Rangers supporters so in that respect surely they must have felt a loyalty to the support and the ongoing welfare of the club. As far as i'm concerned they have been given poor advice,no doubt from their agent,about the status of the club,because whatever the argument there has been no definitive decision of continuity of the club from a legal aspect,whereas there seems to have been from the SFA and SFL after transference of membership. Very significant that the only Rangers fans,Naismith,McGregor, that viewed the club differently from the every other Rangers fan,including players and former players,are those that gained financially from this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 But I think the whole point in raising it in the unions own name is that there are no players named on it???? So for whos' benefit are they raising the Protective Award action for? They can't bring an action without informing the members involved in the action. Who are they representing then? If not players,not one btw have endorsed this action,then who. After all they are prepared to drop this if the SFA breach of contract proceedings are dropped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) I haven't condemned them in any way,what i have stated that irrespective of their views on the club continuity they had an opportunity to give something back to the club,whether they view things differently or not,they proclaimed themselves Rangers supporters so in that respect surely they must have felt a loyalty to the support and the ongoing welfare of the club. As far as i'm concerned they have been given poor advice,no doubt from their agent,about the status of the club,because whatever the argument there has been no definitive decision of continuity of the club from a legal aspect,whereas there seems to have been from the SFA and SFL after transference of membership. Very significant that the only Rangers fans,Naismith,McGregor, that viewed the club differently from the every other Rangers fan,including players and former players,are those that gained financially from this. People proclaim themselves to be 'this n that' every day, but that doesn't mean that they are speaking truthfully. Talk doesn't cook rice. ~Chinese Proverb Edited December 12, 2012 by SS-18 ICBM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I haven't condemned them in any way,what i have stated that irrespective of their views on the club continuity they had an opportunity to give something back to the club,whether they view things differently or not,they proclaimed themselves Rangers supporters so in that respect surely they must have felt a loyalty to the support and the ongoing welfare of the club. As far as i'm concerned they have been given poor advice,no doubt from their agent,about the status of the club,because whatever the argument there has been no definitive decision of continuity of the club from a legal aspect,whereas there seems to have been from the SFA and SFL after transference of membership. Very significant that the only Rangers fans,Naismith,McGregor, that viewed the club differently from the every other Rangers fan,including players and former players,are those that gained financially from this. Tedi will tear you a new one when he reads the stuff in bold! With regards to the players and their attitude, you could say, if anyone should be believed it would be them.... they were right in the middle of it, facing the uncertainty every day, experiencing first hand what was going on instead of relying on propoganda fed by the press... they must have asked around the club about if this was a continuation or not... the fact they believe it not to be.... i'd be more liable to believe them, than believe rangers fans who have been force fed continuity by the press. look back at the stories at the time when they left.... look at the build up and the amount of stories in the press that said the club was dead.... look at the fans banners that said no to liquidation as it would mean the death of the club.... the belief then was the club has dead... what i would like to know is.... who was the first person to start the ball rolling on continuity.... because everyone from green, the fans, the press all said the club was dead. EVERYONE! all of a sudden, round about July the story started appearing everywhere that they were the same club. Now in no way am i suggesting that the new club thing had to be nipped in the bud, otherwise season ticket sales might not have been so strong.... by the way is it a coincidence that when the press started pushing continuity and the talk of dead clubs was halted that a new batch of rangers fans profiles were created on here? i just find it strange that of all the fans who were vocal about saying no to liquidation, the club was too big to die.... none of them are to be found, anywhere in the western world! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 So for whos' benefit are they raising the Protective Award action for? They can't bring an action without informing the members involved in the action. Who are they representing then? If not players,not one btw have endorsed this action,then who. After all they are prepared to drop this if the SFA breach of contract proceedings are dropped. I can only hazard a guess but they are probably raising this on behalf of any future player who might fall under this type of thing in the future - they will probably want to set legal precedent that when a club is liquidated then that is it, finito, caput, and there is no obligation on any player to TUPE over to a brand new club purely on the basis that they play in the same colour strip at the stadium vacated by the dead club just because the fly by night chancer who has set up the new club says so. I might even hazard a guess that they want it done quickly given the perilous state of Hearts and Dundermline for example 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Tedi will tear you a new one when he reads the stuff in bold! With regards to the players and their attitude, you could say, if anyone should be believed it would be them.... they were right in the middle of it, facing the uncertainty every day, experiencing first hand what was going on instead of relying on propoganda fed by the press... they must have asked around the club about if this was a continuation or not... the fact they believe it not to be.... i'd be more liable to believe them, than believe rangers fans who have been force fed continuity by the press. look back at the stories at the time when they left.... look at the build up and the amount of stories in the press that said the club was dead.... look at the fans banners that said no to liquidation as it would mean the death of the club.... the belief then was the club has dead... what i would like to know is.... who was the first person to start the ball rolling on continuity.... because everyone from green, the fans, the press all said the club was dead. EVERYONE! all of a sudden, round about July the story started appearing everywhere that they were the same club. Now in no way am i suggesting that the new club thing had to be nipped in the bud, otherwise season ticket sales might not have been so strong.... by the way is it a coincidence that when the press started pushing continuity and the talk of dead clubs was halted that a new batch of rangers fans profiles were created on here? i just find it strange that of all the fans who were vocal about saying no to liquidation, the club was too big to die.... none of them are to be found, anywhere in the western world! I can refer to other clubs throughout Europe that have went through the exact same process as the PLC but have club contiunity recognised by UEFA and their relevant FA but tbh we've been over this so many times. However where Naismith and others are concerned i would think that they have listened to advice from their agents,not to say it was the correct advice,and then refused to transfer from oldco to newco under TUPE which was their right in my understanding of it and subsequently moved on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 or go on scotland tonight for 20 minutes.it all boils down to shoite at the end of the day. nice of charles to say that 9 million is nothing compared with what needs to be done to bring ibrox upto standard.five star my arse going by that statement last night.wheres the money for improvements coming from. shares? Does Bhairn have two accounts on here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 I can only hazard a guess but they are probably raising this on behalf of any future player who might fall under this type of thing in the future - they will probably want to set legal precedent that when a club is liquidated then that is it, finito, caput, and there is no obligation on any player to TUPE over to a brand new club purely on the basis that they play in the same colour strip at the stadium vacated by the dead club just because the fly by night chancer who has set up the new club says so. I might even hazard a guess that they want it done quickly given the perilous state of Hearts and Dundermline for example So why would they state they would drop their legal claim against Rangers then if the SFA breach of contract proceedings are halted? If the SPFA want to set a precedent then surely they wouldn't try and use this claim as a bargaining tool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) I can refer to other clubs throughout Europe that have went through the exact same process as the PLC but have club contiunity recognised by UEFA and their relevant FA I don't believe you can truthfully do that. Edited December 12, 2012 by SS-18 ICBM 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.