mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 If this is true, why are the SFA withholding the Davis money from us?.He denied he TUPE'd. Until this is confirmed in court their is doubt who the money belongs to, either OldCo or NewCo.I think they left it far too late to object to the transfer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmo21 15 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The angle the players are going at is that they are dropping to the 3rd division and that this is cause for constructive dismissal.They have little to no chance of winning.Is it not that they did not know which division it was going to be?Not sure of the timeline when each player left and when the div 3 was confirmed Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Theres a good article on this here..http://www.morton-fraser.com/blog/employment/2817_rangers_f_c_tupe-can_player_exodus_be_stoppedI think they are both greedy AND worried. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluenose1972 1,405 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 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.I hope we take them for everything they have apart from Sone...Fucking scumbag bastards!!! Especially you Naismith ya fucking wank...Injured for 2 years for your time with being with us and this is how you repaid us???? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mabawsa 888 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 TUPE constructive dismissal is slightly different from your standard type.Its not about being made to feel unwelcome or any of the touchy feely stuff. Its not even about the failure to consult, thats a different issue altogether.Constructive Dismissal through TUPE is things like being told that after you TUPE, you will have to go to a new location to work, 20 miles further away. OR getting told that you have to work nightshift instead of day shift.The angle the players are going at is that they are dropping to the 3rd division and that this is cause for constructive dismissal.They have little to no chance of winning.Their job description did not change. They where still offered T&C's to be professional footballers. The division they play in is not a job or location change. Their business address would still be MP and Ibrox. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 Their job description did not change. They where still offered T&C's to be professional footballers. The division they play in is not a job or location change. Their business address would still be MP and Ibrox.I agree, thats why I dont think they have a case.Only point that they might have merit on would be if the move to the 3rd would then cause them to earn more in bonus payments, or possibly even in commercial activities. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,252 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I agree, thats why I dont think they have a case.Only point that they might have merit on would be if the move to the 3rd would then cause them to earn more in bonus payments, or possibly even in commercial activities.You seem bit confused; if you don't think they have a case why aren't they greedy? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henders82 537 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I for one hope time does not dampen what these so called 'men' did. I will certainly never forget their treacherous acts, and hope they get taken to the cleaners.Coming so soon after the weekend we have just had, I hope it hits home with them that they will never receive the adulation that those fine Rangers Men received on Saturday. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baxters11 8 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Not greedy?? Yes they fucking are.A shower of selfish bastards, several of whom CLAIM to be lifelong Rangers supporters.Fuck them - they deserve all the verbal abuse coming their way. Naismith boasted about the big "signing on" fee he got from Everton. No mention of how Rangers looked after him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 You seem bit confused; if you don't think they have a case why aren't they greedy?I think you picked me up wrong on my OP.I was meaning that the players were not acting out of greed in this case, they were acting to protect their backs by having their contracts declared void.They could care less about a few grand in a 'constructive dismissal' case. They are trying to avoid being sued for breach of contract.I agree the wee rats are greedy, its just that this case they are lodging is not about them being greedy, its about them being scared. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The men who stole from the Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,252 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think you picked me up wrong on my OP.I was meaning that the players were not acting out of greed in this case, they were acting to protect their backs by having their contracts declared void.They could care less about a few grand in a 'constructive dismissal' case. They are trying to avoid being sued for breach of contract.I agree the wee rats are greedy, its just that this case they are lodging is not about them being greedy, its about them being scared.Thanks, agreed.The situation they find themselves in is a result of greed but I agree the motivation for their action is not an attempt to sue Rangers for monies owed.Maybe I mis-read your OP.The post title is certainly mis-leading, think people have their hackles up ready to attack, regardless of what you go onto say in the first post Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,150 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I think the OP has used the word 'greedy' as a sensationalist headline to get us to read the post but the real story is in the content as we all know the cunts are greedy money grabbing bastards (like most footballers). The OP also stated they are probably worried now and this counter claimby them is certainly 'tactical' which is being alluded by the club. I would love nothing more than for us to hit these fuckers where it hurts and that's in the pocket.I think if the club are proved correct on this and certain players are hurt finacially it will allow a lot of our fans to start to move on and instead of this massive feeling of hate towards them due to the way they walked away I think a lot of fans will simply wash their hands of them as we would have some type of retribution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 Thanks, agreed.The situation they find themselves in is a result of greed but I agree the motivation for their action is not an attempt to sue Rangers for monies owed.Maybe I mis-read your OP.The post title is certainly mis-leading, think people have their hackles up ready to attack, regardless of what you go onto say in the first post No worries,Like the poster above said, I controversially titled the post to get folk to come on and comment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,252 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The OP also stated they are probably worried now and this counter claimby them is certainly 'tactical' which is being alluded by the club.Since we are playing games, I could play devil's advocate and say that the reason they are worried is purely financial, since they are all multi-millionaires, you could argue the motivation is still greed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 You have no grudge against a man who's suing us?I was under the impression that Aluko didn't know anything about this either? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I was under the impression that Aluko didn't know anything about this either?He's suing us along with Naismith, Ness, Lafferty and Whittaker for constructive dismissal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 He's suing us along with Naismith, Ness, Lafferty and Whittaker for constructive dismissal.I get that mate, just thought that I read he was claiming not to know about it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,150 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Since we are playing games, I could play devil's advocate and say that the reason they are worried is purely financial, since they are all multi-millionaires, you could argue the motivation is still greed.I agree it could still be argued that's it's greed as they are now worried that the pot of gold they jumped ship for might just get taken off them and being greedy little fucks, that's the last thing they want. They have also outed themselves to all and sundry and nothing will ever remove that stain on their character. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OLE SUPER WILBERT 2,475 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I get that mate, just thought that I read he was claiming not to know about it.The SPFA claim is seperate to the ones who are claiming constructive dismissal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The SPFA claim is seperate to the ones who are claiming constructive dismissal.Fair enough mate, sone has no case to answer anyway, as he was out of contract. IMO Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mabawsa 888 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Then there where 67. Looks like it is dropping by the minute as this 'tactical ' scheme backfires in the week of the IPO . Coincidence the number 67 and the law team involved with the PFA? Strange how none of the players seem to know a thing about it. I wonder if it was just magic that these came up these last few days. Mmmmmm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,137 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 We must remember where the club was when these players bailed out, it was in a state of uncertanty.I don't believe any player walked away because of money, I believe their agents advised them that their carrears were better served elsewhere.The union advised them that they had a right to walk away.The blame lies with the agents and the unions IMO Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlegKuznetsov 10,816 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 The SPFA are probably using all 67 as a bartering strategy, but they may not want to be associated with it now if there is no risk to them and therefore no need to counter-sue.If they believe this to be the case and inform the SPFA, that 67 could drop to something as low as 6. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlegKuznetsov 10,816 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Then there where 67. Looks like it is dropping by the minute as this 'tactical ' scheme in the week of the IPO is being shown for what it is. Coincidence the number 67 and the law team involved? I wonder.The same one with the corpulent, bigoted lawyer who is rumoured to have been hospitalised in a drink driving accident? 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.