bennett Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Life is too short Stoney but you could always nip down to the Inverness CAB tomorrow and give them the low down.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Even more similar is when FIFA stepped in and declared that McGregor's transfer to Besiktas was legal and no fee was due to the new club. Telfer would have tuped over while McGregor never tuped over. Not being a legal expert i'm unsure how it'll work out but maybe the QC will explain it all to us later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Telfer would have tuped over while McGregor never tuped over. Not being a legal expert i'm unsure how it'll work out but maybe the QC will explain it all to us later. Are the players employed by the club? Why have to tupe if employed by the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Are the players employed by the club? Why have to tupe if employed by the club? Great post Stoney, i'll think about it and then get back to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Great post Stoney, i'll think about it and then get back to you. I can't understand how it's possible either, considering the two clubs are supposedly the same. It's perfectly understandable if they were different clubs though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bairney Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 You could always ask them. Blue moon... You're only two years old, You're only two years old, You're only two years old Now try keep that out your head for the rest of the day...beautiful isn' t it? :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Put the fishing rod away Stoney lol 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Thompson actually believes this and it is not just about money then he should be offering BDO £150k, surely. Oh, I bet you're glad you opened that wee can of worms, Pelucia. How many youths developed by rangers did your lot sign when their contracts became null and void? You never know, it might add up to a sum that the liquidators would be interested in... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bairney Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Did you make that up yourself? Top effort, if I was two then it would be a real struggle to be sure. Thankyou two year tedi - I read the headline and it just popped into my head. Bluuuu moooon.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 If Thompson actually believes this and it is not just about money then he should be offering BDO £150k, surely. Oh, I bet you're glad you opened that wee can of worms, Pelucia. How many youths developed by rangers did your lot sign when their contracts became null and void? You never know, it might add up to a sum that the liquidators would be interested in... Eh? Thomson opened it up, it has backfiring ASA type hilarity written all over it. *Sigh* Here we go again. See that first quote of yours up there? That's what I was replying to. That's kinda how this thing works. So, with your (perfectly reasonable, btw) suggestion that Dundee U. should be paying for the lad's development, the question becomes "who should they pay?" The next question would be "who is his contract with?", and the one after that, "when was it signed?". I've never heard of someone transferring from one employer to the same employer under TUPE. Have you? Hence the eminently sensible suggestion that, if that bigotted baldy bastárd and his Dundee Hibs cúnts should pay up*, then the rules should apply across the board, non? Or was I reading your impassioned defence of a fellow Sevconian on here the other day wrong? After all, someone invested time and money to develop all those bright young stars, and it sure as shit wasn't TRIFC. *I'm paraphrasing from some of those "unrepresentative" rangers boards, you understand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Would be fine, if I actually agreed with.....what was it you called him again? ah that`s right you called him a .... 'bigotted baldy bastárd' your words WKR not mine. Unsurprising, I do not agree with him, either do Rangers, that is why they have let this go to tribunal rather than waste any more time trying to negotiate with him, if he accepts a penny more than the £50k quoted figure then he will be left looking daft alongside everyone who is getting excited over this latest publicity stunt that is simply about money. I enjoyed ASA (your reactions before and after were particularly sweet) and I will enjoy the climb down when the tribunal ignores the new club / old club shite and sets what is sees as a fair figure. Hmmm.... Not familiar with the word "paraphrase", then? Can't say I'm shocked. I never said you agreed or disagreed with the Arabs chairman - I said that your idea of paying the development compensation had merit. And the phrase you're looking for in your final wee snipe is "old employer/new employer". As you say, it's all about money. As you should be aware, your new club hasn't got a lot of that, and if they have to throw some of what they do have to the liquidators, I would probably break multiple ribs in paroxysms of mirth. Oh, and feel free to post some of my "reactions" over whatever ASA represents in your wee brain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Eh? Thomson opened it up, it has backfiring ASA type hilarity written all over it. It has MacGregor, Naismith and Setanta hilarity written all over it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 It has MacGregor, Naismith and Setanta hilarity written all over it.didn't Walter myth say something about it being a new club too? traynor said it. in sure chucky said it at some point as well. only 2 years to be paid me thinks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 McGregor and Naismtih never tuped over stoney..................... you work it out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Would be fine, if I actually agreed with.....what was it you called him again? ah that`s right you called him a .... 'bigotted baldy bastárd' your words WKR not mine. Unsurprising, I do not agree with him, either do Rangers, that is why they have let this go to tribunal rather than waste any more time trying to negotiate with him, if he accepts a penny more than the £50k quoted figure then he will be left looking daft alongside everyone who is getting excited over this latest publicity stunt that is simply about money. I enjoyed ASA (your reactions before and after were particularly sweet) and I will enjoy the climb down when the tribunal ignores the new club / old club shite and sets what is sees as a fair figure. If Rangers settle for less than the amount quoted as their acceptable offer then Rangers are in agreement that his contract lasted for less than two years. I thought you viewed the current board as not being Rangers? Yet you are happy for them to act on Rangers' behalf now? Make your mind up tedi, more faces than the town clock you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 McGregor and Naismtih never tuped over stoney..................... you work it out. Aye true. Their player registration papers (the ones which clubs have to pay to be transferred) were held by the club as an asset, did Chucky not buu all of the club's assets and reform them within a new company? If so surely a transfer fee would be due when the registrations were transferred? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Absolute nonsense Rangers have not mentioned the new club / old club stuff, they simply think they are due more compensation, the article even mentions that due to 8 years worth of development then the fee should be 200k, it was united that brought up the 'it should be 50k due to 2 years existence' guff. If the tribunal do what they normally do and settle somewhere in between then Thompson can either pay it and basically admit it was all just about money or refuse on the basis that he actually believes this argument. Awful attempt to turn this around Stoney, you obviously already know how this will end. Yer arse Tedi, if neither price is reached it proves that Thomson was correct. Who paid for the training? Your definition of a club means that the club never paid a single penny, not one. It was the companies who paid for the training. How can a club pay for anything when (by your definition) the club is not a legal entity? The company acting as Rangers FC has only been in existence two years, they are only due two years money. The other company are no longer a football club ergo they are no longer eligible to make a claim under footballing rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Wow, use your head Stoney, after your ASA interpretations and bold claims about how they had found against Rangers I thought you would think before you post this type of nonsense. The article states that under the scheme 8 years would equate to around £200k which equates to £25k per year. This is What Rangers asked for United disagreed they think £50k is the figure and they stated the reason that Rangers have only existed for 2 years, simple arithmetic tells you that they are offering the maximum amount payable for 2 years. It has now gone to the tribunal, if the tribunal propose anything above £50 then they are ignoring the 2 year thing, if Thomson agrees then he is agreeing he got this wrong. Sure tedi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 A bear tries to explain it on 'Ranjurs Medjia' thus .. "To be honest, all it shows is how uneducated the man is. Companies existance is defined in its entirety by law, the definition of a limited company is a separate legal entitiy from its owners - in essance it's seen as a legal person. Therefore, the only definition that matters is the legal definition and legally we have been proven to be the same club with retained history. Better just to ignore the stupid and pity them. " Something Tedi would spout ... You're forgetting, Dhen - ZombieMedia is not representative. It is kinda Tediesque, mind - I particularly like the slagging of someone's intelligence by a poster who uses the words "existance", "essance", and my special favourite, "entitiy". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Spotted on Twitter ... a pub quiz answer in the making .... Kenny Miller is the first player to represent all three OF clubs. Pressley.................. 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.