bennett Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Where's this from? It certainly sounds like nothing ballsy is anticipated. Meh it's mostly could bes and maybes.... Telegraph, link in previous reply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Why would they mention the date on this contract and go on to explain that this is the contract that will now end in 12 months time? So the contract that was signed in 2010 will in end in 12 months time, that is what the statement says Norman, if you don't agree with it speak to those that made the statement, good luck with that. The contract signed in 2010 must have between A McCoist and his then employer, which was liquidated in 2012. That contract is therefore only of any any use if there is any historical claim between Ally and the receivers. He clearly still has an employment contract, otherwise he wouldn't be turning up and they wouldn't be paying him. But it can't be the same one. The statement actually referred to a contract "which was subsequently amended,". Perhaps that was a slip of the pen, and they meant "replaced". Tricky blighters those contracts. You'd think a company like Sevco might have thought to have a lawyer check their statements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Such a move seems likely to be approved, albeit cautiously, by many in the game, because while Ashley plans to use Rangers as a branding vehicle for his sportswear chain Sports Direct, a healthy, competitive Rangers – in the Champions League with the Old Firm rivalry renewed – would attract more interest, sponsors and broadcast revenues across the board. In the Champions League? Haven't UEFA established that if Newcastle are in Europe that Rangers can't be? I'd have thought that he wouldn't like one being at the mercy of the other really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I have just had an interesting message from a corporate lawyer friend of mine. Here are 2 potential scenarios that he sees from the commercial world: 1) The SFA/SPFL fine or punish Rangers /Ashley. Ashley then bankrolls a very expensive legal challenge. This could run into millions. Either the authorities backdown or Scottsh Football sits on the brink. Could Scottish Football afford this type of expense. Would the member clubs be expected to contribute to the cost? 2) Ashley allows Rangers to fold and blames the SFA/SPFL. He gets the land he wants and walks away. Not his fault but the authorities fault. No doubt Ashley will hold all the cards. The SFA can't complain about his <10% shareholding. They can't complain about him making loans to the club. They can't complain that the directors of Rangers are clueless,useless and toothless. And after all if you make loans of millions to Rangers you want your own policeman on the board to make sure your money isn't syphoned. Nor can the SFA complain because Ally needs a big payoff to go (quietly). The SFA and Campbell Ogilvie decide they want to be tough and drive Ashley out. What does Ashley do? Asks for his loans back immediately from the directors of Rangers. (Would be amazed if the loan agreement he made didn't include this) He as near as dammit owns the ground, the shirts, the name. He might then be able to agree a settlement with the Rangers directors, on the condition they sod off. A clear run then for Ashley to setup Rangers whatever way he wants. If he says he will bring in a new competent football manager and give him a war chest of £50mill or so over the next 5 years, the fans will back him and kiss his feet (and anything else he has available). It is amazing what you can do when you have the cash. Something significantly missing from the other "heroes" from David Murray, White, Green, the bus boys, King, Murray II. Ashley enjoys his poker. This game will be an easy one for him. He already holds all the aces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Maybe he was talking literally. Hauling Ashley up in front of a hearing on grounds of breaching the rules is a wee bit more than just getting Ballsy. Let's wait until we get the findings, eh, Pelucía? Remember the "draconian" signing embargo the cheating bastárds at the old club landed when they should have been horsed. Eh yes I did Correct...well done you. Your post, my reply, your latest attempt at being clever. It's really not you, Five Stars. You see those funny wee ticks around the word used to describe your old club's wrist-slap? Now, even if you're sloppy in your use of the language, there would be at least one of them on either side of the word "ballsy" in your post. There aren't, are there? Pfft. Skools, etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 So you are disagreeing with a stock market announcement then? P & B full of such learned people who always know better. I don't want to get in the middle of the argument but I don't think that the fact that it was released as an RNS has any bearing on the accuracy. This is a company that published their official accounts but failed to mention that certain individuals had stock options. Incorrect wording (not that I am saying that it is or isn't the case here) would be small compared to some of the other mis-representations that have been revealed over the last couple of years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 No doubt Ashley will hold all the cards. The SFA can't complain about his <10% shareholding. They can't complain about him making loans to the club. They can't complain that the directors of Rangers are clueless,useless and toothless. And after all if you make loans of millions to Rangers you want your own policeman on the board to make sure your money isn't syphoned. Nor can the SFA complain because Ally needs a big payoff to go (quietly). The SFA and Campbell Ogilvie decide they want to be tough and drive Ashley out. What does Ashley do? Asks for his loans back immediately from the directors of Rangers. (Would be amazed if the loan agreement he made didn't include this) He as near as dammit owns the ground, the shirts, the name. He might then be able to agree a settlement with the Rangers directors, on the condition they sod off. A clear run then for Ashley to setup Rangers whatever way he wants. If he says he will bring in a new competent football manager and give him a war chest of £50mill or so over the next 5 years, the fans will back him and kiss his feet (and anything else he has available). It is amazing what you can do when you have the cash. Something significantly missing from the other "heroes" from David Murray, White, Green, the bus boys, King, Murray II. Ashley enjoys his poker. This game will be an easy one for him. He already holds all the aces. Isn't it the case that one of the conditions for Ashley bailing them out was that he got to select two board members? Lambias (sp) being one, I think? I'd have though, without having even one share, that is an indication of involvement and influence, surely? It's going to make interesting viewing, that;s for sure. It's not going to end up with smiling faces all round, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I don't want to get in the middle of the argument Then don't post, china. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 In the Champions League? Haven't UEFA established that if Newcastle are in Europe that Rangers can't be? I'd have thought that he wouldn't like one being at the mercy of the other really. "If both teams qualify for the same competition, the one with the higher Uefa co-efficient ranking would be allowed to enter at the expense of the other. As things stand, Newcastle are ranked 65 and Rangers are down at 101. In the short term, it is Rangers who will suffer as they have the lower ranking. In the long term, Rangers have a far greater chance of playing in the Champions League than Newcastle, which would mean the Magpies would not be allowed to compete in the Europa League, even if they won a domestic cup competition or finished fifth or sixth in the Premier League" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/11257795/Newcastle-and-Rangers-will-not-be-able-to-play-in-Europe-together-next-season-because-of-Mike-Ashley.html Going by this in the long term it could benefit Rangers but i still can't see why Ashley would favour Rangers over one of the largest EPL clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 \\\aye there have been a few corkers released by Jack Rangers to the Daily Record. The difference is deliberately misleading the stock exchange is I believe an offence. As is failure to pay tax. One thing about the omnishambles down Govan way - from Murray all the way through to the Kraydales, nobody's been right bothered about the rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 You dived into a middle of a conversation, made an arse of it, deal with it you fool. Explains his foul temper tonight, he's never been able to handle being wrong. He'll keep on repeating the same old stuff until you get tired and stop responding to him, then he'll claim 'victory'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) \\\aye there have been a few corkers released by Jack Rangers to the Daily Record. The difference is deliberately misleading the stock exchange is I believe an offence. The accounts are released in this way as well. Hence my point. Then don't post, china. Unnecessary use of a comma there my friend. Edited December 15, 2014 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Explains his foul temper tonight, he's never been able to handle being wrong. He'll keep on repeating the same old stuff until you get tired and stop responding to him, then he'll claim 'victory'. What foul temper would that be? I've been nothing but patient in the face of unrelenting unwillingness to engage from your wee mate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 As is failure to pay tax. One thing about the omnishambles down Govan way - from Murray all the way through to the Kraydales, nobody's been right bothered about the rules. Oh dear. Norman has run out of arguments so he has reverted to type. Come on WKD. How many hospitals could have been bought if Rangers had paid there tax? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 "If both teams qualify for the same competition, the one with the higher Uefa co-efficient ranking would be allowed to enter at the expense of the other. As things stand, Newcastle are ranked 65 and Rangers are down at 101. In the short term, it is Rangers who will suffer as they have the lower ranking. In the long term, Rangers have a far greater chance of playing in the Champions League than Newcastle, which would mean the Magpies would not be allowed to compete in the Europa League, even if they won a domestic cup competition or finished fifth or sixth in the Premier League" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/newcastle-united/11257795/Newcastle-and-Rangers-will-not-be-able-to-play-in-Europe-together-next-season-because-of-Mike-Ashley.html Going by this in the long term it could benefit Rangers but i still can't see why Ashley would favour Rangers over one of the largest EPL clubs. Presumably it holds if one or other qualifies for the Europa league as well? They still can't play each other in the same competition and there's a fair chance of Newcastle qualifying for Europa league. I doubt he'd be happy if both teams qualify and one of them are sitting at home. Also the Newcastle fans wouldn't be that happy either. I wonder if the English FA are having a look at this, breaking their rules as well, no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Presumably it holds if one or other qualifies for the Europa league as well? They still can't play each other in the same competition and there's a fair chance of Newcastle qualifying for Europa league. I doubt he'd be happy if both teams qualify and one of them are sitting at home. Also the Newcastle fans wouldn't be that happy either. I wonder if the English FA are having a look at this, breaking their rules as well, no? I might be wrong here but in England i think it's only an issue if Newcastle get relegated to the football league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Then don't post, china. Unnecessary use of a comma there my friend. Oh Jesus. You'd prefer I'd have said "Don't post china"? Are you seriously suggesting that fragile crockery should not be left to The Post Office? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 No, Tedi. You're close, but not quite there. McCoist's contract with rangers (or whatever the old company traded as) died the day they did. If he transferred over under TUPE, no negative changes could be made to his T&Cs, but his new employer (any employer, in fact)are required by law to furnish him with a contract within 13 weeks of the commencement of his employment with them. The same requirement would be there if he had simply been employed as a "fresh start" with the new company. It's possible, as I stated above, that it was almost identical - although I hardly think the old one would have detailed bonuses for promotions - but it is a new contract. It simply has to be. I honestly cannot see why you're struggling with this. As to whether the statement from rangers is inaccurate, vague, or misleading - just cast your mind back and ask if they've been totally transparent since their reformation in 2012? I'd suggest that if they had been, you wouldn't be wondering where that 70 million went. I think you'll find it didn't die. When Chas bought the assets, he also took over responsibility for existing contracts. Unless one side or the other requested that changes be made to the existing contracts, those contracts would have carried on and no new signatures would be necessary. This happened to me several years ago and the takeover was seamless. Employees had the right to refuse to be Tuped but those who agreed to it carried on with the terms of the original contract. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 I might be wrong here but in England i think it's only an issue if Newcastle get relegated to the football league. Ahh ok. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Oh Jesus. You'd prefer I'd have said "Don't post china"? Are you seriously suggesting that fragile crockery should not be left to The Post Office? missing the if between prefer and I'd. HTH. 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.