geronimoo 1,491 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 The transfer embargo against us says we can only sign players under 18 years old, how would this stand in a court of law.If we use Rino as an example he has said he wants to come and play at Rangers, Rino is now about 34 years old but underthe SFA he is not allowed as for him to come and play at Rangers he has to be under the age of 18.If anyone went for a job somewhere and was told they couldn't get it purely on age the employers would be breaking the law, as far as I'm aware you cannot stop someone from working based on criteria like age, colour, nationality or sexualpreference among other things the only jobs I know where someone can be refused a job based on the person themselfis jobs like toilet atttendant where obviously you couldn't have a man working in a womans toilet and vice versa with a woman in a mans toilet.The bottom line is at present people are being refused employment based on their age. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEE 4,880 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Good point, however I think it has something to do with the type on contract? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 I'm confused, can Rino work in the toilets or not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevineasson 3 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Rino would also be free whereas rangers could potentially go out and spend 20m on 17 year olds. Rediculous rule Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakoni 28 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 As far as I'm aware there is nothing wrong with us giving him a contract. Or indeed buying a player. However, the sfa will not allow their registration. So we would be paying them, but unable to play them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamFyfe 1,438 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 He could work for us but not play Football Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skelf 1,153 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Good point Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 He could work for us but not play FootballThat clears things up. Rino could definitely work in the toilets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff-man 0 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pennyarcade 42 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 It's called ageism, it's against the law just like sexism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally62 393 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 That clears things up. Rino could definitely work in the toilets.FFS I didn't realise the toilets were that bad.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Take your pick or shovel.http://tinyurl.com/bsdh8ub Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfcfraserrfc 262 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Can he play in europe? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfcfraserrfc 262 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 im fucked :mervan: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 My understanding of this is (excluding football I don't know) to punish an employer to be unable to acquire new staff is unacceptable in the current EU mandate...the administrators have said previously the embargo wasn't available to the SFA as a sanction but that's not true because the SFA rules state they can administer any punishment they see fit ( the punishments aren't written in stone) so they can do what the Fuk they want... We should and probably will dispute this at the European court of human rights but by the time it's heard the fuckin embargo will be over... So it might lead to us suing the SFA for negligence ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevelyan 44 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 My understanding of this is (excluding football I don't know) to punish an employer to be unable to acquire new staff is unacceptable in the current EU mandate...the administrators have said previously the embargo wasn't available to the SFA as a sanction but that's not true because the SFA rules state they can administer any punishment they see fit ( the punishments aren't written in stone) so they can do what the Fuk they want... We should and probably will dispute this at the European court of human rights but by the time it's heard the fuckin embargo will be over... So it might lead to us suing the SFA for negligence !If we sign a player and he is not allowed to earn a win bonus, then I believe he can take it to the big court right awayBig court can close the whole lot down until it is resolved Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 How can he even earn a win bonus if he can't be registered to even play man? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 If we sign a player and he is not allowed to earn a win bonus, then I believe he can take it to the big court right awayBig court can close the whole lot down until it is resolvedand the player wound almost certainly win. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECW1972 13 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Worrying about who we can sign is crazy when CG says if we dont get a CVA then shares deal with Whyte is off! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 and the player wound almost certainly win.Hey gunslinger read my last post bud... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Worrying about who we can sign is crazy when CG says if we dont get a CVA then shares deal with Whyte is off!Right... It was SDM and then CW and then TBN's and then D&F's and then BK and then today DK bounces in... I'm gonna need a fuckin BJ to relieve a bit of this stress!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevelyan 44 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 and the player wound almost certainly win.It could also be a player on £200 per week [big win bonus]. He would get legal aid.Someone on £10,000 per week pay as you play could cost SFA a fortunePlayers union might also pay for proceedingsClub can appeal to UEFA seperate which gives UEFA an outI think it is very winable Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eosmhdo 1,879 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 Right... It was SDM and then CW and then TBN's and then D&F's and then BK and then today DK bounces in... I'm gonna need a fuckin BJ to relieve a bit of this stress!!!You could say that all the bids were the initials bids though Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevelyan 44 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 How can he even earn a win bonus if he can't be registered to even play man?The court will see that as two sides of the same coinNot allowing to register = restriction of trade Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 20, 2012 Share Posted May 20, 2012 You could say that all the bids were the initials bids though U piss off Quote Link to post 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.