TUPE. Do we have a leg to stand on?

[devref 201]

i know this isn't football related but my dad was just transfered from one company to the next usuing TUPE, same contract and same job type just different company name, and says he could walk if he wanted but couldnt take a job with another company untill he put his notice in to leave.

maybe something in there that will help us, surely same rules will apply ?!

just done that myself and my understanding is that you have to agree to the transfer and all the conditions of the new company contract which in essence is the contract you were on and tupe mainly covered the working practises between the companies taking the good bits from both companies conditions of employment to bring consistencey between the companies working practise and that includes any adjustments in wages for comparable jobs all being payed at the higher level.so if we are trying to issue new contracts then we is fucked

[markybear 136]

Is it important who the players work/ed for?

Ie, did/do they work for the club or do/did they work for the oldco (plc)

If they are employed by the club then surely they cant just leave under the TUPE. On the flip side if they are employed by the plc then they prob could leave for free.

I have no idea, but this club/plc question has been floating about in my head making me think that the fact that the club was not liquidated then the players can't leave. Again I have no idea, just putting that out there

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

just done that myself and my understanding is that you have to agree to the transfer and all the conditions of the new company contract which in essence is the contract you were on and tupe mainly covered the working practises between the companies taking the good bits from both companies conditions of employment to bring consistencey between the companies working practise and that includes any adjustments in wages for comparable jobs all being payed at the higher level.so if we are trying to issue new contracts then we is fucked

If Green is trying to give out new contracts then he's fucked it up. If he's giving them there normal contracts then they can't go any where.

Think we would need to wait to here what Green has to say before we do anything else.

[Bear78 96]

These sort of issues need to get dealt with swiftly after this vote so that we can get some stability going and fans buying more tickets. I'm sick of all these legal wrangles and stuff giving the media and our other enemies more with which to sink in the knife

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,737]

Well if they don't now then no one will.

That's liquidation for you unfortunately. It certainly isn't the easy way out that journos and SPL directors portray. We have many months of uncertainty ahead of us.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

Maybe after all this shite Rangers could set up a law practice. We've got vry good at this sort of shite in the last 4 months. I've learned alot more about all this stuff which i never thought i would ever need to know or care about.

[c9kay 6]

The company I worked for went into administration and we TUPE'd over with all the assets. I'm also an accountant so have basic knowledge about this sort of thing.

In a normal business the employees would be allowed to leave, however because football players have long contracts and the club holds their registration then that makes it a bit of a grey area. Technically if a player has 4 years left of their contract, then their notice period is also 4 years and they would have to work that period if they wanted to leave.

What will be in the players favour is the fact we are likely to be relegated meaning that the players are now being offered (argubly) a different job as it's at a lower level to that they were previously employed to do.

There has probably been nothing like this happen before so nobody knows who is correct, it will def take a court case to set a precedent going forward.

[T_Cradle85 3]

Generally speaking, things should transfer smoothly. But in every case of TUPE and/or Liquidation and moving to a new company (which is where TUPE comes in), the employee is allowed to be given then opportunity to reject the transfer of contract. Footballing contract or not (meaning a contract that me and you would have with a company).

The bottom line is, that a liquidated company is attempting to move it's work force over to another company - in the case of us, football clubs - where generally speaking most people would accept the terms of transfer (I say terms, I do not mean change in contract, just that they agree to the new company/owner). Football is different though - not that the rules change, but rather that the added confusion of possible player movement is added on - where the player will have a btter cv, and chance of employment at another company (club).

If I was working for a supermarket - say Safeway (using an example here), that gets bought over, then my contract would generally speaking get transfered over. I could refuse the transfer to Morrisons (the company that bought over Safeway), and I would be due some form of compensation/redundancy pay of some kind. But I am well within my right to reject that trasnfer of contract, but at the same time Morrisons have to at least honour my original contract. Thay can not lower it in any way.

Regardless though, I could reject it on any principal, as can the players.

It's completely legit for a player not to agree to it, and they do/are a free agent. Feck they are all technially a free agent right now, but we have first dibs as such.

Tossing in another way of thinking about it i know.

[CoatbridgeBear 7,113]

It's beginning to look like Green's tuped everyone of us

[T_Cradle85 3]

The company I worked for went into administration and we TUPE'd over with all the assets. I'm also an accountant so have basic knowledge about this sort of thing.

In a normal business the employees would be allowed to leave, however because football players have long contracts and the club holds their registration then that makes it a bit of a grey area. Technically if a player has 4 years left of their contract, then their notice period is also 4 years and they would have to work that period if they wanted to leave.

What will be in the players favour is the fact we are likely to be relegated meaning that the players are now being offered (argubly) a different job as it's at a lower level to that they were previously employed to do.

There has probably been nothing like this happen before so nobody knows who is correct, it will def take a court case to set a precedent going forward.

2 points I find unlikely with this, first being that a normal employment contract doesn't have an end date - almost infinite, so what sort of notice period does that give? Notice periods are known when leaving a company, that generally means going to another company of any kind. Does that mean someone being transfered to somewhere else would have to play out the 4 years before the transfer? No.

Secondly, there will be nothing in the players contract that states a change in league is a change in employement. If thats the case then you would see a mass exodus of players for every time ANY club got relegated.

Talking through a hole in your arse if you ask me.

TUPE is a reletavely simple thing when it comes to the employee - your old employer doesn't exist, but we can offer you the same job and contract at a new company that is representing the same business, do you accept?

Yes or no. and they are free to decide which, without breaking any employment laws/contracts.

They have in theory been given a free contract/free agent with us being the first option.

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

We don't even know what league we'll be in next year. McCabe + Laff have already jumped if the mhedia is to be believed.

If the mhedia is to be believed the SPL vote will be against us. Yet we have both the Sheep + Motherwell saying "w haven't made our minds up yet".

Should we be plying our trade in the SPL next season the 'early jumpers' will look rather foolish.

In fairness, players too have families to support and need financial stability.

Tough one all round

[gersandy 594]

i know exactly, but surely since everything has moved over we will be due a transfer fee or compensation if any player moves on to other clubs,

They need to determine what company holds the contracts of the players.

If its the old company, they can leave for nothing as, the company will be dissolved.

If its the new company, a judge will determine if the transfer of contracts were lawfull. If not, the players could leave for nothing.

IMO, this should have been done months ago, asking which players will sign on with the newco, and agreeing transfers out for the rest.

TUPE only comes into play IF they want to transfer. It protects the terms and conditions of the employee. More like admin staff, stadium staff, etc.

Footballers are a different kettle of fish.

[evenstevens 916]

The question of IF they want to transfer is meant to be decided at the exact point of transfer. Employees are nit allowed a protracted period after to determine whether they want to. Once over they are deemed to have accepted under TUPE.

That is the basis of Green's position.

However TUPE also requires ample consultation and information. I suspect players may argue that at the point of transfer some material information wasn't available to them to be properly informed about the implications if the transfer.

[Marco 1,628]

What it hinges on is the wording of employee's consent. TUPE states that an employee may decide not to transfer his contract from one company to another, however this must be done before the transfer is complete (which in our case has already occurred). The argument against Green is that he did not ask/clarify the transfer to players, thereby denying them the right to object.

As is my understanding there already exists a legal precedent for such an issue (within the world of football) and that seems to suggest that players are free to leave (with their registration transferring to their new club). Our only legal challenge is the amount of compensation we are due.

[psychobudgie 55]

It isn't as black and white as the papers are reporting. As I understand it, Rangers hold the players registration and the players, while they could theoretically refuse to accept a new employment contract their registration as a footballer is still held be Rangers. This is due to being registered as a Professional Player with the governing body which enables them to play Football professionally. No registration, no football. Registration is not a contract and is not covered by TUPE.

In a nutshell, they can walk away from Rangers and go work as a plumber but football wouldn't be an option until someone pays for the registration documents while it is held by the club and while the contract of the player is within period.

Aluko would have to wait a month while others with 3 or 4 year contracts could find themselves in court trying to get the registration released and could be counter sued by the club.

It is the reason why there is a transfer window. If normal employment law applied the transfer window wouldn't exist and would indeed, likely be illegal.

[dan_ger 1,454]

<br><br>Look Green is not daft but, if these players do not want to play for Rangers theres no point in taking legal action. Theres no point in keeping players that don't want to play for Rangers.

Yes there is. He won't care if any of them want to leave. He will care about getting a transfer fee for them.

The club, and most importantly the fans, deserve to see the money they spent reinvested. Regardless of the circumstances the club has given these players a platform.

[BeautifulSeas 10]

<br><br>Look Green is not daft but, if these players do not want to play for Rangers theres no point in taking legal action. Theres no point in keeping players that don't want to play for Rangers.

It's not a case of it they don't want to play for us then let them go, it's more that if we keep them we can get money by selling them. If we don't they walk for free.

[bill moles 0]

Yes there is. He won't care if any of them want to leave. He will care about getting a transfer fee for them.

The club, and most importantly the fans, deserve to see the money they spent reinvested. Regardless of the circumstances the club has given these players a platform.

I cannot see how there will be any legal action on this - there is no requirement for the players to transfer to a new co - they have the right to do so if they so wish - and it would appear that some of them do not want to - and they will leave. This all sounds like all the nonsense re getting a CVA when it was clearly HMRC's policy for there to be no CVA in precisely the circumstances that the club were in.

[Tamb 126]

i was involved in a TUPE situation a couple of years ago, we were offered the opportunity to simply transfer to the new company or we could leave immediately. A couple of my colleagues actually chose to leave and did so right away. I agree thta the football registration may make things more complicated but no employee can be forced to accept the transfer of his employment to a new business.

[jonbryce 63]

1340498525' post='1060147840']

I'm assuming the legislation, which I know virtually nothing about, is ambiguous or why does Green, who said "the club's clear legal advice is that players' purported objection is ineffective", think we can do what we're doing? There must be something in the regulations that gives us hope of retaining our players, even if it's just to sell them due to relegation.

Any accountants about?

I'm an accoutant, but for a definitive answer you would need to ask an employment lawyer.

Sevco must offer the players a contract on the same terms as the one they had with Rangers oldco, but the players are not obliged to accept it. There are rules about when they must say they are not accepting it, otherwise it is deemed that they did.

In terms of footballing rules, Sevco is not yet a registered football club, so I don't see how the player registrations could be transferred across, or how we could receive transfer fees from other clubs.

(the newco is still called Sevco for now. It will change its name to Rangers later, presumably when all the paperwork is sorted out.)

[WilliamMunny 3,292]

The Mail - Guidi - saying that Davis Naismith Lafferty Whittaker Bocanegra all want to leave

[jonbryce 63]

1340503715' post='1060147953']

Generally speaking, things should transfer smoothly. But in every case of TUPE and/or Liquidation and moving to a new company (which is where TUPE comes in), the employee is allowed to be given then opportunity to reject the transfer of contract. Footballing contract or not (meaning a contract that me and you would have with a company).

The bottom line is, that a liquidated company is attempting to move it's work force over to another company - in the case of us, football clubs - where generally speaking most people would accept the terms of transfer (I say terms, I do not mean change in contract, just that they agree to the new company/owner). Football is different though - not that the rules change, but rather that the added confusion of possible player movement is added on - where the player will have a btter cv, and chance of employment at another company (club).

If I was working for a supermarket - say Safeway (using an example here), that gets bought over, then my contract would generally speaking get transfered over. I could refuse the transfer to Morrisons (the company that bought over Safeway), and I would be due some form of compensation/redundancy pay of some kind. But I am well within my right to reject that trasnfer of contract, but at the same time Morrisons have to at least honour my original contract. Thay can not lower it in any way.

Regardless though, I could reject it on any principal, as can the players.

It's completely legit for a player not to agree to it, and they do/are a free agent. Feck they are all technially a free agent right now, but we have first dibs as such.

Tossing in another way of thinking about it i know.

If Morrisons asked you to put on a yellow and black uniform rather than a red and green one, and continue working at the same shop doing the same job, you would not be entitled to any redundancy if you refused the offer, because you were offered suitable alternative employment.

If they asked you to turn up for work at the Morrisons next door to the Safeway you worked in, the same would apply.

If they asked you to work at a branch that was some distance away from your local Safeway branch, and it was difficult or inconvenient for you to get there, then you might well be entitled to redundancy.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

If we are going to drag ourselves into the world of employment law, then the players would be allowed to leave for nothing, but then that ALWAYS applies. Any employee can give notice and leave, there is never any need for fees to be paid for the individual employee.

The fee is basically to release the registration of the player, not to stop him having another contract, therefore, if the newco holds the registrations, that is where the ace lies.

What this would mean is that both sides are correct.

The players cannot be forced to go to the newco, but the club would have protection.

However, I do suspect that we would lose any legal action a player took against us.

[lau03143 88]

Most employees are happy with TUPE agreements, same job, same pay and same conditions. Unions and political parties fought for this sort of thing, only at Rangers does it become a problem. Pissed off with the whole thing.

It's different in a sport though. A player could go from playing at the top of their sport, to then playing at the bottom.

I don't blame any player from choosing to go.

[beatler24 2]

Found a piece online which makes TUPE a bit clearer in terms of contract transfer http://www.out-law.com/page-448 but

it does not help in what will happen in terms of us holding the players registiration.