Shades75 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Employee? I thought she was the lawyer acting on behalf of the PFA with regards to the Rangers case? Would you agree that the actions of those who have "outed" her on Twitter are vindictive? Would it not be the case that the PFA have recruited or appointed her? Meaning that there is no way it can be led by her alleged "agenda" as she couldn't have instigated it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Employee? I thought she was the lawyer acting on behalf of the PFA with regards to the Rangers case? So are they trying to suggest she can't be a professional due to the team she supports? I find it amazing the amont of fans (from both sides) who truly think the world resolves around our clubs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yeah I think it is a pure coincidence who she supports, it is always good to know the background of those pursuing the case though, as long as she has no skeletons in the closet and does her job to a professional level, what does she have to fear? A letterbomb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think I just answered that Rangers seen a bit full of themselves if they think the only reason she would do this would be to get at them 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Why? It is obvious, Rangers feel those players who refused to tupe over have a case to answer The PFA raise a counter claim against Rangers,trusting to the old saying 'the best form of defense is attack' except hardly any of those players want to get involved I don't buy into the argument that the players do not have to know, that is simply bullshit imo At the end of the day we have a few players who chased the dollar and are now looking like they might have acted incorrectly Of course the 67 and the fact the bint lawyer is a tic supporter is pure coincidence The same players who are being demonised did Rangers a huge favour in taking a massive wage cut for a considerable period of time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) Yeah I think it is a pure coincidence who she supports, it is always good to know the background of those pursuing the case though, as long as she has no skeletons in the closet and does her job to a professional level, what does she have to fear? That's not to say that she might have accepted the appointment with gusto though :-). Edited December 11, 2012 by Shades75 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Those same players drive about in cars, live in houses and have trophy gf`s that you or I can only dream about, please don`t ask me to feel sorry for them They didn't own the cars, had to give them back to Audi after you went into admin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Those same players drive about in cars, live in houses and have trophy gf`s that you or I can only dream about, please don`t ask me to feel sorry for them My wife is hot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Yeah I think it is a pure coincidence who she supports, it is always good to know the background of those pursuing the case though, as long as she has no skeletons in the closet and does her job to a professional level, what does she have to fear? Probably the same as this poor boy and his dad from your "Greatest Support" on their birthday celebrations http://www.stirlingalbionfc.co.uk/2012/12/10/safc-statement/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Why? It is obvious, Rangers feel those players who refused to tupe over have a case to answer The PFA raise a counter claim against Rangers,trusting to the old saying 'the best form of defense is attack' except hardly any of those players want to get involved I don't buy into the argument that the players do not have to know, that is simply bullshit imo At the end of the day we have a few players who chased the dollar and are now looking like they might have acted incorrectly Of course the 67 and the fact the bint lawyer is a tic supporter is pure coincidence As Naismith, McGregor et al are currently plying their trade elsewhere to satisfaction of all governing bodies concerned, I think we can aree there is no issue on the sporting side. On, then, to the employment situation. You're going to like this bit, Tedi - not a lot, mind.... TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations -as defined by ACAS (that's a link, Bennett). You'll note the initial statement: "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions. It's as if their employment contracts had originally been made with the new employer. Their continuity of service and any other rights are all preserved. Both old and new employers are required to inform and consult employees affected directly or indirectly by the transfer." You'll notice the phrase "same terms and conditions". This is the key issue. Any change, be it salary, holiday entitlement, sick pay arrangements, or number of tea breaks allowed, is accepted as an alteration to these terms and conditions. In this case, the contract with the old employer obviously becomes void - in practise, the old employer will break it as they are no longer around to pay salary - and a new one must be agreed between the new employer and any employee who wishes to agree such a contract. If they do not wish to do so, they can simply walk away. In no circumstances can an employer put an amended contract in front of an employee and force them to sign it. Walking away is always an option. As the SPFA statement clearly says, this action is NOT about any specific individual, or even group of individuals. It is fairly and squarely aimed at the employers - rangers and Charles Green's new company. They have a statutory duty to keep employees informed fairly and contemporaneously with any changes to their employment status - it is whether they have done so or not which is the crux of the case. I remember one player (Wallace?) saying that he had no idea what was going on, which would tend to suggest they were at least a bit lax in their duties. Whether or not you think it's bullshit, I'm afraid it's the law. You'll be pleased to know, though, there is a way round this - and you've been banging on about it for long enough I confess I'm surprised you haven't sussed it. That's right - Continuation! All Charlie's got to do is claim continuation from the old club to the new, and TUPE disappears. Of course, that'll render the club liable for all the money they stole from honest people. Swings and roundabouts, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Spouting employment law does not make the slightest bit of difference to me, all pretty useless without the individual facts, telling me the rules without showing me specifically how they have broken with both sides version is pretty pointless, as you were told earlier, this is cherry picking And you saw who told me, didn't you? Employment Law is fairly useful when you're discussing terms and conditions of employment, which companies that employment is with, and so on and so forth. I know you want to discuss some of this stuff, Tedi, as your knowledge of the inner workings of the Scots Legal system has shown in the past. Don't go all ostrich on us because Charlie Boy has been a fuckwit - it can't come as a surprise. Normally I'd use this as a dig, but for serious this time - before you came on here, we rambled on about TUPE, contracts, change of employers, the whole shebang. Charlie was wrong, and proved to be so, then, and he's wrong now. Still, if you're happy to see the slim pickings of the new clubs income disappearing into m'learned friends' pockets, that's up to you. Good Luck and all that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 As Naismith, McGregor et al are currently plying their trade elsewhere to satisfaction of all governing bodies concerned, I think we can aree there is no issue on the sporting side. On, then, to the employment situation. You're going to like this bit, Tedi - not a lot, mind.... TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) regulations -as defined by ACAS (that's a link, Bennett). You'll note the initial statement: "The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions. It's as if their employment contracts had originally been made with the new employer. Their continuity of service and any other rights are all preserved. Both old and new employers are required to inform and consult employees affected directly or indirectly by the transfer." You'll notice the phrase "same terms and conditions". This is the key issue. Any change, be it salary, holiday entitlement, sick pay arrangements, or number of tea breaks allowed, is accepted as an alteration to these terms and conditions. In this case, the contract with the old employer obviously becomes void - in practise, the old employer will break it as they are no longer around to pay salary - and a new one must be agreed between the new employer and any employee who wishes to agree such a contract. If they do not wish to do so, they can simply walk away. In no circumstances can an employer put an amended contract in front of an employee and force them to sign it. Walking away is always an option. As the SPFA statement clearly says, this action is NOT about any specific individual, or even group of individuals. It is fairly and squarely aimed at the employers - rangers and Charles Green's new company. They have a statutory duty to keep employees informed fairly and contemporaneously with any changes to their employment status - it is whether they have done so or not which is the crux of the case. I remember one player (Wallace?) saying that he had no idea what was going on, which would tend to suggest they were at least a bit lax in their duties. Whether or not you think it's bullshit, I'm afraid it's the law. You'll be pleased to know, though, there is a way round this - and you've been banging on about it for long enough I confess I'm surprised you haven't sussed it. That's right - Continuation! All Charlie's got to do is claim continuation from the old club to the new club and TUPE disappears. Of course, that'll render the club liable for all the money they stole from honest people. Swings and roundabouts, eh? Nice try to twist this but it's company continuity this would affect. You.ve already stated yourself "new company"Nothing to do with club continuity in a football context. As you no doubt realise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Nice try to twist this but it's company continuity this would affect. You.ve already stated yourself "new company"Nothing to do with club continuity in a football context. As you no doubt realise. No attempt to twist, Youngsy. As you know, outside of rangers, we all realise the two are interchangeable, and rangers, the club, company or whatever are no more. (Might have been a wee dig) If it makes it clearer for you, just substitute "company" all the way through. That is the undeniable issue in Law - TUPE applies, as was proved in the summer. Charlie doesn't have a leg to stand on, and to paint any player as a traitor, as has been happening, is pretty fucking disgusting. The SPFA, as their statement makes clear, are not defending or representing any player or group of players. They are addressing perceived malpractice by the club (or company, or Charlie, whatever). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 No attempt to twist, Youngsy. As you know, outside of rangers, we all realise the two are interchangeable, and rangers, the club, company or whatever are no more. (Might have been a wee dig) If it makes it clearer for you, just substitute "company" all the way through. That is the undeniable issue in Law - TUPE applies, as was proved in the summer. Charlie doesn't have a leg to stand on, and to paint any player as a traitor, as has been happening, is pretty fucking disgusting. The SPFA, as their statement makes clear, are not defending or representing any player or group of players. They are addressing perceived malpractice by the club (or company, or Charlie, whatever). I'm certainly not painting anyone as a traitor,people have the right to change employment as they wish,footballers included. I know full well that TUPE applies and this was the reason Naismith,Whittaker etc. moved without a fee,but the outlook from many is these players could have transferred over and then moved on,ensuring a fee to the club. Just too say i think you'll find that the term used if this goes to tribunal will be companies,which i would doubt,not clubs, after all the whole argument is transference or not under TUPE between company to company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 'Of' was intentional. Again, read the post I quoted. It doesn't really matter, I was just being a faeces. Yip ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Probably the same as this poor boy and his dad from your "Greatest Support" on their birthday celebrations http://www.stirlingalbionfc.co.uk/2012/12/10/safc-statement/ hope they claim on The Rangers/international's public liability insurance.hope yer reading dad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) I'm certainly not painting anyone as a traitor,people have the right to change employment as they wish,footballers included. I know full well that TUPE applies and this was the reason Naismith,Whittaker etc. moved without a fee,but the outlook from many is these players could have transferred over and then moved on,ensuring a fee to the club. Just too say i think you'll find that the term used if this goes to tribunal will be companies,which i would doubt,not clubs, after all the whole argument is transference or not under TUPE between company to company. And this is the crux of it. Why on earth would they, when any money required for a transfer could be better employed as an improved signing-on fee or higher wages? Remember, we are talking about PROFESSIONAL footballers - they do it for money, same as the rest of us do our jobs. Serious question - do you believe McCullough TUPE'd over because of his love for the club, or because he knew there was no way an Everton/Southampton/Norwich would ever be looking at a skill-free thug in his mid-thirties? Edited December 11, 2012 by WhiteRoseKillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Bit of a cheek, if you ask me - if I'd voluntarily forgone three-quarters of my wages for months on end to help my fellow employees, at a company that was clearly headed down the pan... ...And then, when I eventually decided to throw in the towel, some joker started shouting at me that I was greedy and selfish... Well, anyone who knows anything at all about human beings can probably guess how that conversation would go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Bit of a cheek, if you ask me - if I'd voluntarily forgone three-quarters of my wages for months on end to help my fellow employees, at a company that was clearly headed down the pan... ...And then, when I eventually decided to throw in the towel, some joker started shouting at me that I was greedy and selfish... Well, anyone who knows anything at all about human beings can probably guess how that conversation would go. But are we talking about a conversation with human beings on both sides? 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.