Jump to content

Naismith and Co are not Greedy


Recommended Posts

Naismith, Aluko, McGregor, Lafferty and Whittiker are not greedy.

They are worried.

The reason for their claim of Constructive Dismissal is not to get money from Rangers, it is to legally have their contracts declared void.

If they successfully claim constructive dismissal, then in essence, it will count as us firing them and that they were free to talk to other clubs.

If they lose the case, they would be considered to be under contract, and to have left and joined other clubs, breaching their contract.

They would personally be liable for damages to the value of these contracts, which will be in the £m's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Naismith, Aluko, McGregor, Lafferty and Whittiker are not greedy.

They are worried.

The reason for their claim of Constructive Dismissal is not to get money from Rangers, it is to legally have their contracts declared void.

If they successfully claim constructive dismissal, then in essence, it will count as us firing them and that they were free to talk to other clubs.

If they lose the case, they would be considered to be under contract, and to have left and joined other clubs, breaching their contract.

They would personally be liable for damages to the value of these contracts, which will be in the £m's.

They will in all probability win their case on a "technicality",but no matter whether they win it or not, they are a bunch of fucking bawbags,especially the first one and the last one on that list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me for being rude, but fuck off. They are greedy, they had the chance, especially in the case of naismith and lafferty, at what every young Rangers fan dreams about all their life, and they didnt just give it up for some extra money... they threw it right back in our face when we needed the money most. So yes, they are greedy.

Fuck them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will in all probability win their case on a "technicality",but no matter whether they win it or not, they are a bunch of fucking bawbags,especially the first one and the last one on that list.

=========================================

I dont think they will win, well not without ripping apart the football world.

The technicality they will use is that there would be a 'significant effect' to their working conditions. as their location and wages were secure, the only change would be their division.

If they win this, it would open up every relegated player to sue their club and get a free transfer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are worried.

They would personally be liable for damages to the value of these contracts, which will be in the £m's.

worried??!!

fuckin magic!!

never has any players deserved to get fucked for millions than those greedy traitor bastards!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the most surprising is Naismith. I have heard a lot of talk about how Rangers stood by him through multiple injuries, etc – and this is all true. However, the main point is that he is an Ayrshire Rangers man, who are by nature, 100% hardcore. Why he left is beyond me and every other ‘shire bigot I spoke to when I was back home in October. We are proud of being intolerant of tarriers, and there is little doubt that we are also intolerant of tarrier behaviour as well, and as such, forgiveness will not come easy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the most surprising is Naismith. I have heard a lot of talk about how Rangers stood by him through multiple injuries, etc – and this is all true. However, the main point is that he is an Ayrshire Rangers man, who are by nature, 100% hardcore. Why he left is beyond me and every other ‘shire bigot I spoke to when I was back home in October. We are proud of being intolerant of tarriers, and there is little doubt that we are also intolerant of tarrier behaviour as well, and as such, forgiveness will not come easy.

Did you miss his and Whittaker's press conference?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think the OP is correct - Look at Davis. We got money from Southampton for him, and he was not left owing millions, yet he was the same as Naismith / Lafferty etc when refusing to sign over and joined a new club.

Difference here is that we settled the debt with Southampton. We got money in return and dont need to take davis through the courts. It probably wasnt what he was worth, but it was something.

Its no coincidence that Davis is not one of the names on the above list. He does not need to claim constructive dismissal as he is not at risk.

Look at it in another way. Folk downloading pirated movies. 10 folk download a movie and get caught. They are offered the chance to settle for £50 a pop and have the charges dropped. Otherwise they can take their chances in court and face a £1000k fine.

No real difference. Davis/Southampton paid the fine, the others are going to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting wages or in this case leaving before the wages were due to be paid by the New Business is a key point, i would imagine our point is that we never changed the employees terms and conditions didnt change in any way his position description place of work or renumeration package and were willing to continue his employment as is.

Constructive dimissal is generally claimed on the back of the company placing you in a position that you fear they are going to change your employment status or undermine your contract in some way, thus making it impossible to continue under your normal employment conditions.

Their only argument is TUPE and nothing else, given that TUPE is a legal right given to any worker would normally trump us, however and i could be wrong we will argue that they was a considerable amount of legal warngling going on that prevented any information being supplied to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of them are on twitter claiming to know hee haw about it which is a bit strange

I dont think any of them know about the '67 charges of failure to inform'. Thats being brought by the PFA on behalf of the players, but I think they have forgot to inform the players, which is ironic in itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Accepting wages or in this case leaving before the wages were due to be paid by the New Business is a key point, i would imagine our point is that we never changed the employees terms and conditions didnt change in any way his position description place of work or renumeration package and were willing to continue his employment as is.

Constructive dimissal is generally claimed on the back of the company placing you in a position that you fear they are going to change your employment status or undermine your contract in some way, thus making it impossible to continue under your normal employment conditions.

Their only argument is TUPE and nothing else, given that TUPE is a legal right given to any worker would normally trump us, however and i could be wrong we will argue that they was a considerable amount of legal warngling going on that prevented any information being supplied to them.

The only angle I can see them trying is that they say the move to the 3rd division would be a significant change to their employment.

This would open a can of worms though, as any player who was then relegated from any team in the UK could claim constructive dismissal against their club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Difference here is that we settled the debt with Southampton. We got money in return and dont need to take davis through the courts. It probably wasnt what he was worth, but it was something.

Its no coincidence that Davis is not one of the names on the above list. He does not need to claim constructive dismissal as he is not at risk.

Look at it in another way. Folk downloading pirated movies. 10 folk download a movie and get caught. They are offered the chance to settle for £50 a pop and have the charges dropped. Otherwise they can take their chances in court and face a £1000k fine.

No real difference. Davis/Southampton paid the fine, the others are going to court.

Then surely Southampton agreed they owe us something, hence paying it. If Everton/Sion/Stoke whoever are apparently denying this (which would be the first port of call, as you would claim from the players employer rather than the player first of all) then THEY should be the people who we should be chasing.

I am not defending any player who ran away. While I don't think we should chase individuals, IF we have grounds, we should go after the clubs directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then surely Southampton agreed they owe us something, hence paying it. If Everton/Sion/Stoke whoever are apparently denying this (which would be the first port of call, as you would claim from the players employer rather than the player first of all) then THEY should be the people who we should be chasing.

I am not defending any player who ran away. While I don't think we should chase individuals, IF we have grounds, we should go after the clubs directly.

Its difficult to go after the clubs, as the players received clearance. So we would need to go after FIFA I believe.

Its much easier to go after the players for breach of contract, as that is strictly the only one which is enforcible in a court of law. The other avenues are within football itself, and they would just act to protect themselves.

Southampton paid us because they were not dicks, and they probably didnt want to see one of their players getting dragged through the courts and watching his playing level drop through stress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its difficult to go after the clubs, as the players received clearance. So we would need to go after FIFA I believe.

Its much easier to go after the players for breach of contract, as that is strictly the only one which is enforcible in a court of law. The other avenues are within football itself, and they would just act to protect themselves.

Southampton paid us because they were not dicks, and they probably didnt want to see one of their players getting dragged through the courts and watching his playing level drop through stress.

I'll be honest - I cannot think of many players who has peronnely been taken through the courts. Webster 'perhaps' ala Wigan / Us, but I cannot see Green taking half a dozen players personnely to court. As you said, if FIFA gave clearance then we need to go back to FIFA and challenge their rules on this, and there for chase any potential fee's from the new employers.

And if FIFA gave clearance, then does that not negate any potential "breach of contract" as if they allowed clearance, then they must have then accepted that there was no any valid contract with Rangers at the time.

It's a messy, messy situation, but present day I think just fuck it. They have made their beds, and I doubt many players will succeed (which is normally the case when you leave Rangers) and just thank god that we have players like Jig, Wallace, McKay, McLeod etc over turncoats like Naismith, Lafferty, and Ness. (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 20 October 2024 11:00 Until 13:00
      0  
      Kilmarnock v Rangers
      The BBSP Stadium, Rugby Park
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Football HD

×
×
  • Create New...