youngsy Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Alan MacGregor .. the authorities say ,,,, new club .. So you'll have confirmation that it has been stated by the football authorities that this is a new club. Put it up where this was stated unequivocally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Because you are not Rangers, Green bought some replica trophies and and some certificates which were awarded to Rangers. All he has are relics of a dead club. Agreed, it rather like me owning a ticket and a recoding for a Beatles concert in the 60's and claiming I was there even though I am only in my 30s. Impossible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 FIFA sanctioned the transfer of McGregor to Besiktas because he did not transfer over under TUPE from The Rangers Football Club plc to the new company,The Rangers Football Club Limited,or to be precise Sevco Scotland,the company that owned the club at that instance. Green tried to lay claim to the player citing that they were the same club,certainly, but the whole situation came about because McGregor did not transfer from old company to new company,nothing else. Under TUPE regulations as employees of the old company they were legally entitled not to transfer over,and of which some players invoked that right to become free agents. Absolutely nothing to do with transference of SFA Membership that ensures continuity. Now ffs this is it for me on this,save to say that in the years to come the continuity will still be recognised by the relevant people,of which you aren't one. Any chance you can let us know about your CAB and Trading Standards mission against Charles Green,really interested in finding this outcome. And who would they be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) FIFA sanctioned the transfer of McGregor to Besiktas because he did not transfer over under TUPE from The Rangers Football Club plc to the new company,The Rangers Football Club Limited,or to be precise Sevco Scotland,the company that owned the club at that instance. Green tried to lay claim to the player citing that they were the same club,certainly, but the whole situation came about because McGregor did not transfer from old company to new company,nothing else. Under TUPE regulations as employees of the old company they were legally entitled not to transfer over,and of which some players invoked that right to become free agents. Absolutely nothing to do with transference of SFA Membership that ensures continuity. Now ffs this is it for me on this,save to say that in the years to come the continuity will still be recognised by the relevant people,of which you aren't one. Any chance you can let us know about your CAB and Trading Standards mission against Charles Green,really interested in finding this outcome. No his registration was being held by the SFA on behalf of Charles Green for Sevco who wanted a transfer fee for him. Employment law and players registrations are two separate issues. One deals with employment and one deals with the registration of players. It was established a long time ago that under employment law the players were under no obligation to transfer their contract because the clubs are seperate entities in the eyes of the law however Charles Green's argument was not over the contract but over the registration of the players. Charles Green believed that Sevco and Rangers were the same club with continuation and that all the players' registrations continued to be held by the SFA in Rangers' name but FIFA (or the SFA) disagreed with this approach and the players registrations have obviously been viewed as with a different club. This is where the same club rhetoric breaks down because no matter which stance you take whether you believe that the football authorities or the law rules on where there is a continuation both sides have shown that there is no continuation in this case. Edited September 11, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 And this lie hasn't stuck and wont stick. Except in the voided minds of diddy clubbers and the plastics. This is The Rangers we're talking about, son The club has had a number of owners - Green is the figurehead for the new owners and not about to hand over something he paid for. And most certainly not on instruction of liewell and his acolytes. Who would? The SPL? Only they would try and hold a case against a body they have no jurisdiction over. But why would he pay for the history if it's the same club ? either it's not the same club or Cg's just been ripped off for a quid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 And who would they be? At a guess i would say the footballing authorities wouldn't you. If you or anyone can show one instance of any footballing authority stating that this club is not a continuos club,please show the statement. Floors all yours'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 I thought the SFA would have a conflict of interest as they allowed these EBTs to be used and knew all about them and the players were registered with them. If it transpires that the players were wrongly registered does that not show them as being incompetent? Rangers had a duty to register all contractual arrangements with players. If there were side letters that were given to players as part of a negotiated wage then it is wholly on Rangers to notify the relevant authorities. It is the same as when a company pays corporation tax - they need to notify HMRC in an agreed manner. They cannot turn around and say - we stated in our accounts that we made a profit, you should have been aware of it and issued us a demand. The registration of players with the football authorities is a "club" matter not a "company" matter or is there no difference????? BTW, Where is the proof that this was actually the case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 At a guess i would say the footballing authorities wouldn't you. If you or anyone can show one instance of any footballing authority stating that this club is not a continuos club,please show the statement. Floors all yours'. FIFA stated Sevco have no rights to player registrations from the old club. How high up the football authorities ladder do you think you can climb? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 But why would he pay for the history if it's the same club ? He bought The Rangers. Lock, stock and barrel. Not difficult to understand. Not even for a diddy clubber. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Take PT's advice wee man. For the SevCo fans on here......... Take 2 and don't call me in the morning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 My recollection is that the licence for the new club (CLUB) was authorised on the basis that Newco accept Oldco penalties. If that includes title stripping then so be it. In my view it should include title stripping as a minimum if found guilty. There should be a review of income generated by Rangers and potential loss of income by others. That should result in a multi million pound fine. If they bleat about it after accepting the licence conditions then the licence should be revoked and the cheating c***s launched out of the game. They should have been booted out months ago. Oops accidental reddy. Sorry about that. Agree whole heartedly, especially the bit in bold. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Yes, yes it is That was the end of sense in your post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 He bought The Rangers. Lock, stock and barrel. No he didn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 No his registration was being held by the SFA on behalf of Charles Green for Sevco who wanted a transfer fee for him. Employment law and players registrations are two separate issues. One deals with employment and one deals with the registration of players. It was established a long time ago that under employment law the players were under no obligation to transfer their contract because the clubs are seperate entities in the eyes of the law however Charles Green's argument was not over the contract but over the registration of the players. Charles Green believed that Sevco and Rangers were the same club with continuation and that all the players' registrations continued to be held by the SFA in Rangers' name but FIFA (or the SFA) disagreed with this approach and the players registrations have obviously been viewed as with a different club. This is where the same club rhetoric breaks down because no matter which stance you take whether you believe that the football authorities or the law rules on where there is a continuation both sides have shown that there is no continuation in this case. The registration was held by the SFA until the outcome was decided as to whether he was a free agent after the liquidation of the old company and because he did not transfer over under TUPE nothing to do with club continuity. Again where has it been stated unequivocally by the football authority that this is indeed a new club with no continuance from 1872. Show such a statement and that's an end to it.You'll have proven your point because as it stands the SFA Membership transference ensures continuity and is recognised as such by the relevant authorities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 He bought The Rangers. Lock, stock and barrel. Not difficult to understand. Not even for a diddy clubber. Nope, he bought the relics. If he had bought Rangers lock stock and barrel the creditors would be getting paid back, either by CVA or in full. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 At a guess i would say the footballing authorities wouldn't you. If you or anyone can show one instance of any footballing authority stating that this club is not a continuos club,please show the statement. Floors all yours'. Would that be the same footballing authorities that the govan cherry pickers have been accusing of incompetence & hypocrisy over the last 6 months ? Now whatever they say is gospel truth ?...Interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 FIFA stated Sevco have no rights to player registrations from the old club. How high up the football authorities ladder do you think you can climb? Because the players didn't transfer over under TUPE regulations,that's why. Now once again show a statement from football authorities stating that this is a new club,that's all i'm asking for and i'll accept that it is indeed a new club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 He bought The Rangers. Lock, stock and barrel. Except the players & the debt eh ? Cherry picking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) The registration was held by the SFA until the outcome was decided as to whether he was a free agent after the liquidation of the old company and because he did not transfer over under TUPE nothing to do with club continuity. Again where has it been stated unequivocally by the football authority that this is indeed a new club with no continuance from 1872. Show such a statement and that's an end to it.You'll have proven your point because as it stands the SFA Membership transference ensures continuity and is recognised as such by the relevant authorities. TUPE is a rule of British law, player registrations come under football law. It has always been the case that McGregor did not have to TUPE over so why was the registration withheld? You really do clutch at straws. Show me where the SFA state continuity or FIFA or UEFA. Edited September 11, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeTeeJag Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 If it's the same club then the titles should be removed for cheating. If it's not the same club then it has no titles. So which is it SevCo fans? Old club and whatever punishment it fully deserves, or new club and no history? 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.