MasterD 7,436 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 http://www.dailyreco...wouldnt-1087790Sensationalised rubbish from the paper as usual.Quote from our manager on the same day that was posted.‘Someone has said he is paying £150,000, but he is paying nothing like that. If it’s a 10th of that, maybe.’ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weshallnotbemoved! 714 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Charles says in his statement that he claimed for constructive dismissal so he must know something about it. It didnt happen by magic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 pedro mendes 1 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 sounds like another media created storm that charles has blown right back at them .well played again CG. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEE 4,880 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 From prospectus:Certain players of RFC 2012 plc (Alan McGregor, Kyle Lafferty, Rhys McCabe, Sone Aluko, Steven Davis, John Fleck, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker and Jamie Ness) purported to object to the transfer of their contracts of employment to RFCL pursuant to TUPE.Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised employment tribunal claims against Newco.How could he object to transfer if he didn't have a contract? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo 1,433 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 If it's in the prospectus then it is 100% true. Otherwise the directors are guilty of criminal offences. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Did Aluko have an automatic renewal clause in his deal? ie after x number of games he gets a new contract? Has this 'option' been reneged upon by the club? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEE 4,880 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Did Aluko have an automatic renewal clause in his deal? ie after x number of games he gets a new contract? Has this 'option' been reneged upon by the club?No, he had a clause which said Rangers could extend the deal by 2 years with an agreed wage if they chose to do so.I'd say the first quote from the prospectus may indicate we attempted to do so. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 No, he had a clause which said Rangers could extend the deal by 2 years with an agreed wage if they chose to do so.I'd say the first quote from the prospectus may indicate we attempted to do so.So lets say such a clause did exist, presumably the player wouldn't, in normal circumstances anyway, have a right of refusal if the club decided to exercise their option to extend? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 A BITTER war of words erupted last night as Sone Aluko claimed he isn’t taking Rangers to court — only for Charles Green to insist: Oh yes you are.Hull ace Aluko was named as one of three ex-Ibrox stars who had lodged individual tribunal claims over constructive dismissals.He took to Twitter yesterday afternoon to distance himself from the accusations but Gers chief executive Green hit back, listing the former Aberdeen wide man alongside Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness in taking action.Aluko said: “I don’t have, nor am I interested in slightest in any claims/tribunals and any other scenario of that nature against anyone. Not my style!“A messy route no one gains from. So there u have it from me. As u were!”But Green said: “Three players — Aluko, Lafferty and Ness — have raised constructive dismissal claims against the club as it stands now.“We have challenged their right to do so.“It is disappointing players who left the club to further their careers rather than play in Division Three should be continuing with these actions or allowing them to be progressed on their behalf.”PFA Scotland are taking the club to a separate employment tribunal on behalf of 67 past and present Gers players they claim weren’t consulted over becoming newco employees.In a statement last night, the Union said proceedings were based on legal principle, with no player planning to pursue claims.But PFA bosses say they will drop the case if Green halts his bid to claw back damages from stars who walked away for free under employment law when the old club folded.An SFA arbitration panel is set to rule on that on January 7.Green said: “The fact many of the supposed 67 players are still at Ibrox and have indicated they have no part in this action begs the question why it’s being raised at all.“A number of former players have already signed agreements with the club waiving any right to participate in this claim. In reality we’re talking about six players who have some form of dispute, rather than 67.”Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/feeds/smartphone/scotland/4693509/Aluko-Im-not-court-up-in-this.html#ixzz2Enajj9UE Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elephants stoned 2,994 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Charles says diffrent Sone, im quite sad how this is all ending up, players like Mcgregor, Lafferty and Sone gave us some great memorys and now they will be forever tarnished by this whole sorry saga Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBlue 136 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Could the admins please ban anyone who uses terrible tabloid puns as topic titles Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuartm 7 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Charles says diffrent Sone, im quite sad how this is all ending up, players like Mcgregor, Lafferty and Sone gave us some great memorys and now they will be forever tarnished by this whole sorry saga Nightmares more like. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nimrod 62 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sounds more like the PFA on a witch hunt than any great number of players.And if the arbitration panel is the SFA we might as well get the vaseline out now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non_Sucumbi 876 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sounds more like the PFA on a witch hunt than any great number of players.And if the arbitration panel is the SFA we might as well get the vaseline out now.Now the SPFA are saying 'you drop your case and we'll drop ours'. Hope Charles tells them to Foxtrot Oscar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 72,040 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 If it's a shootout between Sone and Charles then Sone may as well just lay down and take the beating. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEE 4,880 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 So lets say such a clause did exist, presumably the player wouldn't, in normal circumstances anyway, have a right of refusal if the club decided to exercise their option to extend?The clause DID exist there's no confusion about that, and yes it was written into the contract so under normal circumstance it would have been binding if activated.The confusion lies in was the clause actually activated and if so, in my book, he's just as bad as Naismith etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mabawsa 888 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sounds more like the PFA on a witch hunt than any great number of players.And if the arbitration panel is the SFA we might as well get the vaseline out now.Check the legal advisers for the SPFA. Then it might make sense on the no.67 and the ensuing claims ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimgers 565 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sounds more like the PFA on a witch hunt than any great number of players.And if the arbitration panel is the SFA we might as well get the vaseline out now.Sounds more like this guy Wishart is on a one man mission here, without the backing of the PFA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1mgg 3,766 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sounds like the PFA are doing this without the players consent or knowledge, even for the ones that are still at rangers Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Jela 20,374 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Charles says diffrent Sone, im quite sad how this is all ending up, players like Mcgregor, Lafferty and Sone gave us some great memorys and now they will be forever tarnished by this whole sorry saga If that bothered them at all they would have thought twice before fucking us over the way they did. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,190 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Aluko could well be telling the truth.The Irony is the PFA are taking action against Rangers because they did not consult or inform the union regarding the players.It now seems the PFA did not consult the players about the actions taken on their behalf If Rangers win their case against Aluko and co then these players could be liable to repay money, in that event the PFA could be held responible as they gave the incorrect advice to the players.Sqeeky bum time at the PFA IMO Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,696 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Aluko could well be telling the truth.The Irony is the PFA are taking action against Rangers because they did not consult or inform the union regarding the players.It now seems the PFA did not consult the players about the actions taken on their behalf If Rangers win their case against Aluko and co then these players could be liable to repay money, in that event the PFA could be held responible as they gave the incorrect advice to the players.Sqeeky bum time at the PFA IMOThey didn't give incorrect advice the pfa don't seem to have given any advice at all to anyone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
choochooblue 342 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Check the legal advisers for the SPFA. Then it might make sense on the no.67 and the ensuing claims ...very true mabawsa , maggie gribbons partakes in the occasional drinking session in Bairds with her legal partners paul mowberry and liam o'donnell , strangely o'donnell defended jeff winters recently . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Sounds more like this guy Wishart is on a one man mission here, without the backing of the PFA.Ex Rangers player aswell is he not? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Who goes after somenes former employers without asking the eomployee who they are supposed to be acting for?Could only happen in Scotland against Rangers if you ask me. No where else or any club would have to go through this.And when the guy thats supposed to be acting for these players is a ex Rangers player it makes you wonder. 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.