http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxLpOmRHJlI
I felt like this reading that
The new season kicks off 5 weeks on sat and 6 weeks for the 3rd div, does anyone believe this shambles can be sorted out by then
The shambles wont be sorted by then, but it doesn't need to be quick. I personally don't want these players to ever play for the club again. However I want transfer fees for them as does the club.
Castle Grayskull..... here here......get them all out NOW....we dont want or need them....is it too much to ask for all of the rats jump ship in one go rather than this cowardly drip feed of announcements?
why
they all had contracts with a club that doesnt exist anymore
Couldnt be bothered reading the links tbh, but was there a consultation period? Im pretty sure there has to be a mandatory period where objections can be raised.
I think Whittaker said he had only received one communication in all this time from Green/Newco, so unless this was notification of the consultation period, I doubt Green has much hope, as he hasnt followed standard employment law
Bhoywonder you have no idea what you are saying. You would back anything that hits rangers, you would also never agree that rangers will win anything, so why is your input relevant?
I myself think it could go either way having studied employment law and worked in Law.
Mitre, well researched.
Two points.
1. Has the changeover technically happened yet? My understanding is that the liquidation process is still ongoing and indeed could take months to complete. The fact the oldco still exists would be an issue no?
2. What notice were the players given in regards their ability to object? I would have thought there would need to be a set time for the emoloyees to consider their position and therefore they can still object within that timeframe?
So Whittakers only problem was that Green didn't contact him timeously? < laugh> How dumb do they think we are/
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I'm not sure a consultation period is required, where there is going to be no change to your contractual terms.
There is also the argument that a significant portion of these players signed contracts with the administrators to leave on reduced fees at the end of the reduced-terms agreement.
These may and probably will be binding, and the players may find themselves having to fork out the lost revenue, which would be sad given they opted to take the paycuts which lined Duff and Duffers pockets in the first place.
I don't hold anything against the guys who want to leave.
Despite being a Gers fan, if I was in their position, I would still have to think long and hard about it.
This is far from over, so there's a lot of guys with families who need to have that stability and certainty about the future that Rangers can't give..
Cheers Ivan,
Point 1 : Change over happened at point of sale. Nothing to do with the OldCo anymore. The TUPE I was involved with myself was where THUS PLC, sold its call centre business to Reponse. We knew nothing of the sale until one day when we came in and get told we worked for a differnent company. Both Thus and PLC both exist, so its at the point of sale that TUPE happens.
2. There is no legal notice period for a TUPE. There is good practice, which should be followed, but is unenforceable.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
1. Has the changeover technically happened yet? My understanding is that the liquidation process is still ongoing and indeed could take months to complete. The fact the oldco still exists would be an issue no?
2. What notice were the players given in regards their ability to object? I would have thought there would need to be a set time for the emoloyees to consider their position and therefore they can still object within that timeframe?
______________________
1) It happened when Green paid for all the assets and Goodwill of the club. The Old co is only a business number shell with a bank account.
2) The players had notice due to media etc. Depending on what notice green gave (we don't know) and this will be the point of law that it id decided on.
I'm not buying the wantaway players saying they had no contact with Green as their agents have been meeting with Greens people which the players have lied about basically, probably to get the fans onside.
Brooklynbrawler..'This is far from over, so there's a lot of guys with families who need to have that stability and certainty about the future that Rangers can't give..'.
..................................................................................
are you for real? Do you know how much these guys are earning? Probably at least five times as much as you. It's nothing to do with 'families' ..it's about greed purer and simple.
Mitre
Surprised at your answer for the second point. Doesn't seem right to me. I would have thought that would have been challengeable through the courts.
The players are painting a picture to try and make people feel sorry for them and/or so the fans support them, but it is pretty clear they are just engineering moves away and sorting out more money for themselves in the process with a lack of transfer fee involved. Several of those guys had already had reduced transfer fees written into their contract, so it's pretty clear that they had thought about the current scenario for long enough, and knew of their intentions long before the past few days.
It isn't a Green thing and it isn't a "newco" thing.
Greedy? Yes.
Would you do the same in their position? ...Probably.
comment by sanity_claus (U2022)
posted 1 minute ago
Brooklynbrawler..'This is far from over, so there's a lot of guys with families who need to have that stability and certainty about the future that Rangers can't give..'.
..................................................................................
are you for real? Do you know how much these guys are earning? Probably at least five times as much as you. It's nothing to do with 'families' ..it's about greed purer and simple.
**************************
It's all about supply and demand though.
They could all be earning more at other clubs. That is a certainty.
You also have to taken into account that a players career can be over at any time through injury and will be over for most players by the age of 35 as well.
After that, their earning potential is next to nothing if they don't invest wisely.
I 100% agree that it's motivated by greed, but the cost of these lads mortgages and upkeep of high maintenance birds and all the rest is also 10 times what I'm making.
Income and outgoings are all relative...
"comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
Mitre
Surprised at your answer for the second point. Doesn't seem right to me. I would have thought that would have been challengeable through the courts."
--------------------------------------------------
When you consider it, its not really surprising.
Why would someone object to a TUPE? Their contract is safe, their conditions are safe, as far as from an employment point of view, they are not any worse off.
The new season kicks off 5 weeks on sat
.................................................................................
you mean the day after i finish reading this op?
Ivan the second point is what the case will be decided on. Mitre for once is not technically right on that one (for once).
The thing with UK law is that its' Case Law based so it evolves case by case taking into account past precedent. I suspect this will be a case that decides some issues in TUPE.
There's also a footballing and transfer fees issue at hand.
If these guys are technically allowed to "resign" and a judge finds in their favour, then it has the potential to open up a whole can of worms to allow any player to do the same, just like in any other line of work.
Hand in your notice, and cheerio transfer fee....
Also, I said I don't hold anything against these guys, but I take that back....Whittaker on £25k a week!?! GTF!
I cant believe that a court would support Green given that he hadnºt spoken to the players, couldnºt say what league they were in, couldnºt support his " big talk" with names of investors or a business plan. Hardly going to keep an international footballer at a club , is it!
coop
i doubt any player has anything in their contract stating what league they will be playing in , of course Green couldnt afford their salaries , but they should have stayed and then left when they werent paid
Sign in if you want to comment
TUPE - Is Green Right?
Page 1 of 3
posted on 27/6/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxLpOmRHJlI
I felt like this reading that
posted on 27/6/12
The new season kicks off 5 weeks on sat and 6 weeks for the 3rd div, does anyone believe this shambles can be sorted out by then
posted on 27/6/12
@ tornado
posted on 27/6/12
The shambles wont be sorted by then, but it doesn't need to be quick. I personally don't want these players to ever play for the club again. However I want transfer fees for them as does the club.
posted on 27/6/12
Castle Grayskull..... here here......get them all out NOW....we dont want or need them....is it too much to ask for all of the rats jump ship in one go rather than this cowardly drip feed of announcements?
posted on 27/6/12
why
they all had contracts with a club that doesnt exist anymore
posted on 27/6/12
Couldnt be bothered reading the links tbh, but was there a consultation period? Im pretty sure there has to be a mandatory period where objections can be raised.
I think Whittaker said he had only received one communication in all this time from Green/Newco, so unless this was notification of the consultation period, I doubt Green has much hope, as he hasnt followed standard employment law
posted on 27/6/12
Bhoywonder you have no idea what you are saying. You would back anything that hits rangers, you would also never agree that rangers will win anything, so why is your input relevant?
I myself think it could go either way having studied employment law and worked in Law.
posted on 27/6/12
Mitre, well researched.
Two points.
1. Has the changeover technically happened yet? My understanding is that the liquidation process is still ongoing and indeed could take months to complete. The fact the oldco still exists would be an issue no?
2. What notice were the players given in regards their ability to object? I would have thought there would need to be a set time for the emoloyees to consider their position and therefore they can still object within that timeframe?
posted on 27/6/12
So Whittakers only problem was that Green didn't contact him timeously? < laugh> How dumb do they think we are/
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
I'm not sure a consultation period is required, where there is going to be no change to your contractual terms.
There is also the argument that a significant portion of these players signed contracts with the administrators to leave on reduced fees at the end of the reduced-terms agreement.
These may and probably will be binding, and the players may find themselves having to fork out the lost revenue, which would be sad given they opted to take the paycuts which lined Duff and Duffers pockets in the first place.
I don't hold anything against the guys who want to leave.
Despite being a Gers fan, if I was in their position, I would still have to think long and hard about it.
This is far from over, so there's a lot of guys with families who need to have that stability and certainty about the future that Rangers can't give..
posted on 27/6/12
Cheers Ivan,
Point 1 : Change over happened at point of sale. Nothing to do with the OldCo anymore. The TUPE I was involved with myself was where THUS PLC, sold its call centre business to Reponse. We knew nothing of the sale until one day when we came in and get told we worked for a differnent company. Both Thus and PLC both exist, so its at the point of sale that TUPE happens.
2. There is no legal notice period for a TUPE. There is good practice, which should be followed, but is unenforceable.
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
1. Has the changeover technically happened yet? My understanding is that the liquidation process is still ongoing and indeed could take months to complete. The fact the oldco still exists would be an issue no?
2. What notice were the players given in regards their ability to object? I would have thought there would need to be a set time for the emoloyees to consider their position and therefore they can still object within that timeframe?
______________________
1) It happened when Green paid for all the assets and Goodwill of the club. The Old co is only a business number shell with a bank account.
2) The players had notice due to media etc. Depending on what notice green gave (we don't know) and this will be the point of law that it id decided on.
I'm not buying the wantaway players saying they had no contact with Green as their agents have been meeting with Greens people which the players have lied about basically, probably to get the fans onside.
posted on 27/6/12
Brooklynbrawler..'This is far from over, so there's a lot of guys with families who need to have that stability and certainty about the future that Rangers can't give..'.
..................................................................................
are you for real? Do you know how much these guys are earning? Probably at least five times as much as you. It's nothing to do with 'families' ..it's about greed purer and simple.
posted on 27/6/12
Mitre
Surprised at your answer for the second point. Doesn't seem right to me. I would have thought that would have been challengeable through the courts.
posted on 27/6/12
The players are painting a picture to try and make people feel sorry for them and/or so the fans support them, but it is pretty clear they are just engineering moves away and sorting out more money for themselves in the process with a lack of transfer fee involved. Several of those guys had already had reduced transfer fees written into their contract, so it's pretty clear that they had thought about the current scenario for long enough, and knew of their intentions long before the past few days.
It isn't a Green thing and it isn't a "newco" thing.
Greedy? Yes.
Would you do the same in their position? ...Probably.
posted on 27/6/12
comment by sanity_claus (U2022)
posted 1 minute ago
Brooklynbrawler..'This is far from over, so there's a lot of guys with families who need to have that stability and certainty about the future that Rangers can't give..'.
..................................................................................
are you for real? Do you know how much these guys are earning? Probably at least five times as much as you. It's nothing to do with 'families' ..it's about greed purer and simple.
**************************
It's all about supply and demand though.
They could all be earning more at other clubs. That is a certainty.
You also have to taken into account that a players career can be over at any time through injury and will be over for most players by the age of 35 as well.
After that, their earning potential is next to nothing if they don't invest wisely.
I 100% agree that it's motivated by greed, but the cost of these lads mortgages and upkeep of high maintenance birds and all the rest is also 10 times what I'm making.
Income and outgoings are all relative...
posted on 27/6/12
"comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 1 minute ago
Mitre
Surprised at your answer for the second point. Doesn't seem right to me. I would have thought that would have been challengeable through the courts."
--------------------------------------------------
When you consider it, its not really surprising.
Why would someone object to a TUPE? Their contract is safe, their conditions are safe, as far as from an employment point of view, they are not any worse off.
posted on 27/6/12
The new season kicks off 5 weeks on sat
.................................................................................
you mean the day after i finish reading this op?
posted on 27/6/12
Ivan the second point is what the case will be decided on. Mitre for once is not technically right on that one (for once).
The thing with UK law is that its' Case Law based so it evolves case by case taking into account past precedent. I suspect this will be a case that decides some issues in TUPE.
posted on 27/6/12
There's also a footballing and transfer fees issue at hand.
If these guys are technically allowed to "resign" and a judge finds in their favour, then it has the potential to open up a whole can of worms to allow any player to do the same, just like in any other line of work.
Hand in your notice, and cheerio transfer fee....
Also, I said I don't hold anything against these guys, but I take that back....Whittaker on £25k a week!?! GTF!
posted on 27/6/12
I cant believe that a court would support Green given that he hadnºt spoken to the players, couldnºt say what league they were in, couldnºt support his " big talk" with names of investors or a business plan. Hardly going to keep an international footballer at a club , is it!
posted on 27/6/12
coop
i doubt any player has anything in their contract stating what league they will be playing in , of course Green couldnt afford their salaries , but they should have stayed and then left when they werent paid
Page 1 of 3