Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[scoobles]

Far be it for me to stick up for Rangers but I think its worth pointing out that the Foundation of Hearts was set up over 4 years ago.

Plus we were very fortunate that we have Ann Budge willing to take the Club on in the short term.

The major difference being that Hearts fans got off there collective arses and raised money and are continuing to raise money to keep their club alive.

Massively different to the actions of the 500m fans across the universe.

[dave.j]

No idea Dave, that was the one that was quoted.

It would seem nothing suspect, just a contract for service, a contract for him to provide a service.

I was obviously leading to, is there another separate contract or agreement signed for bonus or something like that.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Why do you continue to make an arse of yourself.

'His service contract dated 28 December 2010, which was subsequently amended, has a 12-month notice period'

Are the letters big enough for you.

Oh, they're lovely and big, Tedi. Well Done You.

Now, contracts. A contract of employment is between two (normally) parties - the employer and the employee. With me so far? Good.

Now, Fat Boy signed a contract, as did his employer, in 2010. Agreed? Excellent.

So, please enlighten me as to how he is apparently employed under a contract agreed with an employer - and here's the important part, so pay attention, little fella - which no longer exists?

[Monkey Tennis]

you know, it wouldn't surprise me and i've mentioned this before that disgruntled football supporters of the club should form their own football club like manchester utd and wimbledon supporters did.

I've said this myself a few times Snaffers.

If fans really just want a stake and really just want to focus on the football, the path to take is obviously the one you outline.

Fans have already indicated that they're prepared to watch their club in lowly circumstances, in huge numbers, as illustrated by the 40,000 plus crowds in the bottom tier.

The difficulty I see however is that an admission that a new club has been formed, would be required. Talk of 54 titles would need to cease. I very much doubt if there's therefore a significant appetite for such a course.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Oh honestly. You are disappearing inside your own morass. You have not a fucking scooby about any contracts - nor have any of the rest of us. Stop trying to pretend.

I'm no expert, just know what I have to. Maybe you could try answering the simple question at the end of my post at 20:46 then?

I have no idea of any terms or conditions in any contracts McCoist may have had in his time at ibrox. What is clearly impossible is for him still to be subject to the same contract that he signed up to in 2010. Is that really so difficult for you lot?

[WhiteRoseKillie]

You were also very fortunate to get neutral administrators who did what they were supposed to do and do not now have employees sitting on fraud charges.

I don't think they were very fortunate at all. I would be surprised if the vast majority of administrators did not conduct themselves to the highest professional standards. Hearts got what they had a right to expect.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

No, lets not wait

Not getting 'Ballsy' would have been ignoring it all and hoping it goes away.

I don't know why you bother pretending you're quoting me, Little Grasp.

KIcking up a fuss, hauling your lot before the beak, and giving them a slap on the wrist, or an unenforceable fine - that's just the Lords and Masters playing to the gallery while bending over backwards for rangers, a la 2012.

If, and it's a big if, actual punishment is the result of this complaint (if found proven) - then we might call it "ballsy". Well, you might. It's not a word I tend to use.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

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.

Again, Tedi, signed by who? Fúck it, I'll try once more.

Signed by McCoist - the employee.

Signed by a representative of the employer - the now-liquidated rangers.

He may well be on an identical contract - word for word, other than the business' name and the representative who acts on their behalf in the matter. It cannot, however, be the same contract. Were that the case, he'd have been sat on the kerb outside of the front door of ibrox with the contents of his desk in a binbag months ago.

[weirdcal]

Thought he tuped over??

[The_Kincardine]

Oh honestly. You are disappearing inside your own morass. You have not a fucking scooby about any contracts - nor have any of the rest of us. Stop trying to pretend.

I'm no expert, just know what I have to. Maybe you could try answering the simple question at the end of my post at 20:46 then?

No problem. Here is the post:that you made:

So, please enlighten me as to how he is apparently employed under a contract agreed with an employer - and here's the important part, so pay attention, little fella - which no longer exists?

Two responses:

1. Your continuing use of phrases like, "little fella" marks you out as an utter c**t. Our team may well be treading water but take this pish to the Finding Nemo forum.

2. Moving contracts from an employer, "which no longer exists" is entirely possible and is pretty common. As I said earlier, "You're no QC" so stop making an utter arse of yourself.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Comprehension letting you down again, it was HB that used the term, you were defending him, you cant even get that right.

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.

Now, the first quoted post here is the one I replied to. Says "Tedi" on my PC. No quotes round the word "ballsy" - an unnecessary capital, though. Any reason you're trying to bring HB into this? Oh, maybe that's who your post was in reply to, in which case you'd be due an apology.

Oh, no, hang on...it's yer old mate Vicky.

"defending" - I may agree or disagree with posters - of all affiliations - on here, but "defend"? Really? I don't even have a covered wagon. Try to stop judging others by your own standards, there's a good chap.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

The statement makes it crystal clear that it is the same contract.

You are all over the place here so I am unsure if you are actually arguing against something I have stated or are you actually saying the Statement released by Rangers is incorrect and that according to you, two contracts exist?

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.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

SDM, Whyte, Duffer and Felpers, Muir, Green, the more the merrier.

What about Ogilvie?

[bennett]

Mike Ashley could be in control of Rangers as well as Newcastle United within weeks with the Scottish Football Association’s approval. The development looks increasingly possible despite Ashley being charged with breaches of club ownership rules by the governing body of the game in Scotland.

The Newcastle United owner has been cited under two disciplinary rules and Rangers under three rules but Telegraph Sport can reveal that Ashley plans to increase his stake at Ibrox to 29.9% – which would give him effective control of the beleaguered the club without triggering Stock Exchange takeover rules.

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.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I never said it was your quote ya loon, I put the term in quotes to show that it was not my term.

So it was you that jumped into a conversation without discovering the full context of that conversation, made an arse out of yourself and now you want an apology for it?

Eh, no you didn't - and now I've quoted said post, it's pointless going back and doing so now. But, in TediLand, it's me that's made an arse of myself. Have a go at me for not tracking a three-way conversation, and yet you can't even keep track of your own burblings. Well Done You.

[The_Kincardine]

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.

Oh dear. To paraphrase Oscar Wild, "“To have one QC may be regarded as a misfortune; to have two looks like carelessness.”

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Mike Ashley could be in control of Rangers as well as Newcastle United within weeks with the Scottish Football Association’s approval. The development looks increasingly possible despite Ashley being charged with breaches of club ownership rules by the governing body of the game in Scotland.

The Newcastle United owner has been cited under two disciplinary rules and Rangers under three rules but Telegraph Sport can reveal that Ashley plans to increase his stake at Ibrox to 29.9% – which would give him effective control of the beleaguered the club without triggering Stock Exchange takeover rules.

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.

Source? Because that sure as shit ain't all yer own work, is it?

The last line's got a whiff of the ol' Cockwomble...

[bennett]

Eh, no you didn't - and now I've quoted said post, it's pointless going back and doing so now. But, in TediLand, it's me that's made an arse of myself. Have a go at me for not tracking a three-way conversation, and yet you can't even keep track of your own burblings. Well Done You.

Calm down Norman, you're getting angry again and thats never a good thing...

[Monkey Tennis]

Mike Ashley could be in control of Rangers as well as Newcastle United within weeks with the Scottish Football Association’s approval. The development looks increasingly possible despite Ashley being charged with breaches of club ownership rules by the governing body of the game in Scotland.The Newcastle United owner has been cited under two disciplinary rules and Rangers under three rules but Telegraph Sport can reveal that Ashley plans to increase his stake at Ibrox to 29.9% – which would give him effective control of the beleaguered the club without triggering Stock Exchange takeover rules.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.

Where's this from?

It certainly sounds like nothing ballsy is anticipated.

[bennett]

Source? Because that sure as shit ain't all yer own work, is it?

The last line's got a whiff of the ol' Cockwomble...

Sorry Norman it's from the Telegraph, i forgot to link it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11295462/Mike-Ashley-could-control-Rangers-and-Newcastle-United-within-weeks.html