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...
strichener Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 You have a point? You may not understand the point being made but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Similar to the understanding that Rangers have regarding money in and money out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 To my eyes it's all set up with Whyte knowing all along that he would decide when to play the administration joker card to position himself as main creditor. I genuinely believe some sort of deal will grudgingly be accepted by HMRC. There will be pain for Rangers - but they will indeed dodge the big hammer blow. Short term pain, longer term, they'll weasel a way to rise phoenix-like from administration, as I say, like so many morally bankrupt cheating football clubs before them. Thoughts? Hopefully not just of a 'LOL' nature! Really looking to see what you guys seriously see the end of this actually being when the dust settles. 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. Deja Vu? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 As it appears to be bennett and The_Pedant's turn to rescue Tedi's hand-car from the quicksand* this time, maybe one of them could explain how McCoist has the same contract as he had in 2010, even though he is now employed by a different company? You might want to throw in a curve ball as well and ask him why the same contract can be held by two different companies. The contract he had with "Rangers Football Club PLC est 1872" can't be the same contract he has with "Sevco Scotland est 2012" because they are two completely different entities and if Fat Salary has the same contract then surely it must be the PLC est 1872 that is paying the idiots wages. Ffs Tedi even posted the contract was amended ? , if he had posted Sooper had a similar contract just like the club he supports is similar to the last Rangers FC he supported then no one could have contradicted him at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 (edited) 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. Sensible post, Hec. You make a reasonable point. Have a Charles. Your case also makes a good justification for a few days "on the naughty step" and I'm delighted to see you posting again. Edited December 15, 2014 by The_Kincardine 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis 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. Yes, I think that's right. The Football League has restrictions on duel ownership along similar lines to those in Scotland, whereas the EPL is less regulated. It's interesting this. The Scottish authorities clearly wish to be seen to be doing something, but it's hard to see what they can do, without precipitating things they won't want. I'd imagine that some humiliating climbdown is likely, although it'll be unconvincingly billed as a negotiated settlement that's in everyone's interests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 No, lets not wait Not getting 'Ballsy' would have been ignoring it all and hoping it goes away. You truly have no patter of your own and keep stealing other posters patter eg "lol" It would appear you are getting a bit ballsy yourself tonight chump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 SDM, Whyte, Duffer and Felpers, Muir, Green, the more the merrier. The Rangers fans, the more the merrier eh ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calum_gers Posted December 15, 2014 Share Posted December 15, 2014 Indeed ... club/company? Whose tax? Your use of "there"'. Seething mess of a post ... You could only do worse by posting 'shyte' equivalent to Tedi's drug induced rambling about McCoist's contract. Your new club gets funnier and funnier ... have they been nominated for the British Comedy Awards? No they haven't. 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.