What does the league or investors have to do with a court of law on TUPE? I doubt it was in their contracts otherwise they would have mentioned the league as a contractual walk away reason.
As for him not speaking to the players? Says who the players spokesperson who's interest is to get the fans off their clients back? Agents met Greens people the other week if paper reports are to be believed. I don't believe anything the players are saying right now tbh.
Then,,, true but the uncertainty for an international player plus the lack of communication by the owner is important.
I think the lack of communication is due to Green not being able to answer lots of questions.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Coop, none of that is news though. Why did they wait till after the transfer to put their objection in? It was public knowledge. That is a key point.
I agree with that mitre, that will be what the case rests on imo.
So players read it in a paper and thats the point when the consultation period starts?
Castle, my input is relevant cause I think it is. Point im making IF there is a legal consultation period, it likely didnt happen.
People on here saying there is no consultation period, yet Green is quoted as saying objections had to be raised with 24 hrs?
So which is it? If there shoukd have been consultation period = players right. If not = Green right. simples
And again Castle, Rangers will win the 3rd Div title next season if they manage to be allowed to play there. See, im not against saying Rangers wont win anything
Mitre......Fluck knows, unless the Co, is supposed to advise them before the transfer and by not doing have broken the contract ????
Ok playing Devils advocate....
I work for Company A. I chose to work for Company A because it promotes itself as an ethical, environmentally friendly organisation which is important to me. I turned down more lucrative offers from elsewhere to work for Company A because of its ethical policies.
Company A got into trouble and was bought over and turned into Company B. This company has no such policies. On the contrary, it is clearly environmentally unfriendly and works unethically, which goes against my morals.
I do not wish to work for Company B, but from what you're saying I'm now tied to working for a company I dislike because I comitted myself to Company A that I did like.
That seems not only unfair, but against my basic human rights. You're also denying me the opportunity to earn more elsewhere.
AS I said coop who said there has been no communication? The players spokesperson? It's obvious what they have to gain is it not?
The DR and sun etc? What do they have to gain by lying and printing the spokesperson's comments. Oh, that's right a good story, selling lots of papers.
Green has done nothing wrong at all as far as I'm concerned. The guy saved the club. The players are looking for ways to walk and are lying about stuff and that's a fact. The only one who was half honest was Davis today.
Castle...The guy saved the club !!!! How - The guy borrowed 5.5 million and gave it to D/Pl the club now owes 5.5 m and is paying interest at 8 % ! the guy has lied about investors and refuses to name them, 5 days after the purchase he offers to sell 50% of the club for 8.7 million and offers McColl 2 seats on a board of 5 ! You think the guy has done nothing wrong , I disagree.
meandcoop well if that's what you think fair enough. I don't agree.
I have said all along there are other investors who wont be named yet and that doesn't bother me. It makes sense to not name them right now. Their names will come out once the club is settled.
Why did they wait till after the transfer to put their objection in? It was public knowledge. That is a key point.
----------------
Public knowledge or not, the new employer has to inform the employee of the contract transfer. Apparently this wasnt done and the only contact the players have had was one email last week. You cant object to something you havent been told about.
"comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 12 minutes ago
Ok playing Devils advocate....
I work for Company A. I chose to work for Company A because it promotes itself as an ethical, environmentally friendly organisation which is important to me. I turned down more lucrative offers from elsewhere to work for Company A because of its ethical policies.
Company A got into trouble and was bought over and turned into Company B. This company has no such policies. On the contrary, it is clearly environmentally unfriendly and works unethically, which goes against my morals.
I do not wish to work for Company B, but from what you're saying I'm now tied to working for a company I dislike because I comitted myself to Company A that I did like.
That seems not only unfair, but against my basic human rights. You're also denying me the opportunity to earn more elsewhere."
------------------------------------------------------------
1. You can object if you can claim that you had no knowledge who the new company was. - Not the case here.
2. Otherwise, you can resign, then work your notice period.
3. "You're also denying me the opportunity to earn more elsewhere". Thats the case with all football contracts. A compensation package has to be agreed first.
Public knowledge or not, the new employer has to inform the employee of the contract transfer. Apparently this wasnt done and the only contact the players have had was one email last week. You cant object to something you havent been told about.
___________________________
Who said it wasn't done CelticDavie?
Both sides think they are right here and the courts wills settle it.
BTW turn on talksport Bomber Brown is coming on now.
"Public knowledge or not, the new employer has to inform the employee of the contract transfer. Apparently this wasnt done and the only contact the players have had was one email last week. You cant object to something you havent been told about."
----------------------------------------------------
CelticDavie, can you post the law that states this? As far as I am aware its only good practice.
It certainly was not done when I went through TUPE.
Castle - the employees subject to the transfer. The Bomber is on? Better watch out for that "stumbling box".
Mitre -I'm not reading though TUPE law, got work to do!
TUPE is designed to protect the employee, not the employer. You cant transfer contracts if the employee chooses not to. If the employer doesnt tell the employee when the transfer takes place then how can someone object, especially within a designated timeframe? The players have said they recieved only one email from Green last week so going by that they werent told.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
1. I think you can argue this point out. I don't see why it makes a difference if you know the new company or not. I should still be allowed to decide if I want to work for them or not. From a Rangers view, the players simply know the name of the newco - they know nothing else right now, not least where it will be conducting its business ie which league.
2. Players can't just resign though. I appreciate in my example they could, but a footballer can't. Surely that in itself muddies the waters enough to allow claims,of human rights infringements.
3. Again a footballers situation is different. The likes of Davis may have turned down lucrative offers simply because he loves Rangers. To him the Newco isn't Rangers (this is obviously for arguments sake I'm saying this). Why should he have to play for a club he has no feeling for now?
Ivan there's no point going over the legal issues on here. The courts will decide it.
Castle
To be fair I'm just trying to get some kind of handle on the whole thing. Ultimately none of us has any idea what will happen. Hopefully it won't drag on forever...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"TUPE is designed to protect the employee, not the employer. You cant transfer contracts if the employee chooses not to. If the employer doesnt tell the employee when the transfer takes place then how can someone object, especially within a designated timeframe?"
They knew it was likely. They were in administration, it was a matter of public record. If the CVA failed, they would be TUPE'd.
You cannot pick and choose when to reject a TUPE. the players are at risk here for delaying. They should have objected prior to the asset transfer.
It is true that TUPE is there to protect employees, but notice period and contract durations are there to protect employers.
This will come down to which one has acted the most lawfully. Right now it could go either way. Green for not following good practice, or the players for walking out on legally binding contracts.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
only sure thing is that this going to the courts to sort out
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
TUPE - Is Green Right?
Page 2 of 3
posted on 27/6/12
What does the league or investors have to do with a court of law on TUPE? I doubt it was in their contracts otherwise they would have mentioned the league as a contractual walk away reason.
As for him not speaking to the players? Says who the players spokesperson who's interest is to get the fans off their clients back? Agents met Greens people the other week if paper reports are to be believed. I don't believe anything the players are saying right now tbh.
posted on 27/6/12
Then,,, true but the uncertainty for an international player plus the lack of communication by the owner is important.
I think the lack of communication is due to Green not being able to answer lots of questions.
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
Coop, none of that is news though. Why did they wait till after the transfer to put their objection in? It was public knowledge. That is a key point.
posted on 27/6/12
I agree with that mitre, that will be what the case rests on imo.
posted on 27/6/12
So players read it in a paper and thats the point when the consultation period starts?
Castle, my input is relevant cause I think it is. Point im making IF there is a legal consultation period, it likely didnt happen.
People on here saying there is no consultation period, yet Green is quoted as saying objections had to be raised with 24 hrs?
So which is it? If there shoukd have been consultation period = players right. If not = Green right. simples
And again Castle, Rangers will win the 3rd Div title next season if they manage to be allowed to play there. See, im not against saying Rangers wont win anything
posted on 27/6/12
Mitre......Fluck knows, unless the Co, is supposed to advise them before the transfer and by not doing have broken the contract ????
posted on 27/6/12
Ok playing Devils advocate....
I work for Company A. I chose to work for Company A because it promotes itself as an ethical, environmentally friendly organisation which is important to me. I turned down more lucrative offers from elsewhere to work for Company A because of its ethical policies.
Company A got into trouble and was bought over and turned into Company B. This company has no such policies. On the contrary, it is clearly environmentally unfriendly and works unethically, which goes against my morals.
I do not wish to work for Company B, but from what you're saying I'm now tied to working for a company I dislike because I comitted myself to Company A that I did like.
That seems not only unfair, but against my basic human rights. You're also denying me the opportunity to earn more elsewhere.
posted on 27/6/12
AS I said coop who said there has been no communication? The players spokesperson? It's obvious what they have to gain is it not?
The DR and sun etc? What do they have to gain by lying and printing the spokesperson's comments. Oh, that's right a good story, selling lots of papers.
Green has done nothing wrong at all as far as I'm concerned. The guy saved the club. The players are looking for ways to walk and are lying about stuff and that's a fact. The only one who was half honest was Davis today.
posted on 27/6/12
Castle...The guy saved the club !!!! How - The guy borrowed 5.5 million and gave it to D/Pl the club now owes 5.5 m and is paying interest at 8 % ! the guy has lied about investors and refuses to name them, 5 days after the purchase he offers to sell 50% of the club for 8.7 million and offers McColl 2 seats on a board of 5 ! You think the guy has done nothing wrong , I disagree.
posted on 27/6/12
meandcoop well if that's what you think fair enough. I don't agree.
I have said all along there are other investors who wont be named yet and that doesn't bother me. It makes sense to not name them right now. Their names will come out once the club is settled.
posted on 27/6/12
Why did they wait till after the transfer to put their objection in? It was public knowledge. That is a key point.
----------------
Public knowledge or not, the new employer has to inform the employee of the contract transfer. Apparently this wasnt done and the only contact the players have had was one email last week. You cant object to something you havent been told about.
posted on 27/6/12
"comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 12 minutes ago
Ok playing Devils advocate....
I work for Company A. I chose to work for Company A because it promotes itself as an ethical, environmentally friendly organisation which is important to me. I turned down more lucrative offers from elsewhere to work for Company A because of its ethical policies.
Company A got into trouble and was bought over and turned into Company B. This company has no such policies. On the contrary, it is clearly environmentally unfriendly and works unethically, which goes against my morals.
I do not wish to work for Company B, but from what you're saying I'm now tied to working for a company I dislike because I comitted myself to Company A that I did like.
That seems not only unfair, but against my basic human rights. You're also denying me the opportunity to earn more elsewhere."
------------------------------------------------------------
1. You can object if you can claim that you had no knowledge who the new company was. - Not the case here.
2. Otherwise, you can resign, then work your notice period.
3. "You're also denying me the opportunity to earn more elsewhere". Thats the case with all football contracts. A compensation package has to be agreed first.
posted on 27/6/12
Public knowledge or not, the new employer has to inform the employee of the contract transfer. Apparently this wasnt done and the only contact the players have had was one email last week. You cant object to something you havent been told about.
___________________________
Who said it wasn't done CelticDavie?
Both sides think they are right here and the courts wills settle it.
BTW turn on talksport Bomber Brown is coming on now.
posted on 27/6/12
"Public knowledge or not, the new employer has to inform the employee of the contract transfer. Apparently this wasnt done and the only contact the players have had was one email last week. You cant object to something you havent been told about."
----------------------------------------------------
CelticDavie, can you post the law that states this? As far as I am aware its only good practice.
It certainly was not done when I went through TUPE.
posted on 27/6/12
Castle - the employees subject to the transfer. The Bomber is on? Better watch out for that "stumbling box".
Mitre -I'm not reading though TUPE law, got work to do!
TUPE is designed to protect the employee, not the employer. You cant transfer contracts if the employee chooses not to. If the employer doesnt tell the employee when the transfer takes place then how can someone object, especially within a designated timeframe? The players have said they recieved only one email from Green last week so going by that they werent told.
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
1. I think you can argue this point out. I don't see why it makes a difference if you know the new company or not. I should still be allowed to decide if I want to work for them or not. From a Rangers view, the players simply know the name of the newco - they know nothing else right now, not least where it will be conducting its business ie which league.
2. Players can't just resign though. I appreciate in my example they could, but a footballer can't. Surely that in itself muddies the waters enough to allow claims,of human rights infringements.
3. Again a footballers situation is different. The likes of Davis may have turned down lucrative offers simply because he loves Rangers. To him the Newco isn't Rangers (this is obviously for arguments sake I'm saying this). Why should he have to play for a club he has no feeling for now?
posted on 27/6/12
Ivan there's no point going over the legal issues on here. The courts will decide it.
posted on 27/6/12
Castle
To be fair I'm just trying to get some kind of handle on the whole thing. Ultimately none of us has any idea what will happen. Hopefully it won't drag on forever...
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
"TUPE is designed to protect the employee, not the employer. You cant transfer contracts if the employee chooses not to. If the employer doesnt tell the employee when the transfer takes place then how can someone object, especially within a designated timeframe?"
They knew it was likely. They were in administration, it was a matter of public record. If the CVA failed, they would be TUPE'd.
You cannot pick and choose when to reject a TUPE. the players are at risk here for delaying. They should have objected prior to the asset transfer.
It is true that TUPE is there to protect employees, but notice period and contract durations are there to protect employers.
This will come down to which one has acted the most lawfully. Right now it could go either way. Green for not following good practice, or the players for walking out on legally binding contracts.
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 27/6/12
only sure thing is that this going to the courts to sort out
posted on 27/6/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 2 of 3