Jump to content

MORE pish from the SFA


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Right, I'm gonna get savaged here but feck it.............

I think the SFA are right here, well to an extent. The verdict from the SFA hearing came back in the favour of the players, in this case I would expect the losing party to pick up the legal expenses.

I don't agree with the outcome reached though. I think the players were still contracted to the club. They left it too late after the TUPE to object in my opinion.

I think we would win if we took it to court, but I don't think it's worth the hassle to be honest.

Remember the SFA are asking for money to go to the players here, not for it to go to the SFA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Rangers don't stand up for themselves then this will go on and on. There comes a time when you have to say 'no, no more'. That time is now. The last thing the SFA or SPL would want is a legal battle so threaten them with that. Like others say, issue a statement that clearly states we won't be paying any of these fees and that we're happy to go to a court of law if need be.

UEFA don't like it when a Club takes matters to a court of law but who cares. What will UEFA do? Stop the National team and Scottish Clubs from entering their competitions? Who cares that doesn't have any impact on us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to be controversial here and say Im not quite 100% sure that this debt is not ours to pay.

The previous SPL stuff is simply nonsense but this mmmmmmmmmm

Did we not raise the action against the players?

beat you to it by a post mate.

Like you say, we raised the claim, the players had to pay for legal representation, they won. Nothing unusual with us paying.

Like I say, don't agree with the verdict, but I don't happen to think this is a controversial bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on. Your all getting yer knickers in a twist. Independent panel appointed as rangers are trying to say players broke contracts. Now we have a legal bill.

Of course we have a legal bill. We are chasing the players for losses incurred.

It am I reading it wrong???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but when was "the club" placed into liquidation? stopped reading there. BBC will be getting a wee email explaining that it was the holding company

this dispute goes back to the administration, a deliberate mis-quote by that wee tarrier at the bbc, they are all sweating like pedo papists, sfa/spl insolvent, don't pay tv licence and the bbc scot(ireland) goes down
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I'm gonna get savaged here but feck it............. I think the SFA are right here, well to an extent. The verdict from the SFA hearing came back in the favour of the players, in this case I would expect the losing party to pick up the legal expenses. I don't agree with the outcome reached though. I think the players were still contracted to the club. They left it too late after the TUPE to object in my opinion. I think we would win if we took it to court, but I don't think it's worth the hassle to be honest. Remember the SFA are asking for money to go to the players here, not for it to go to the SFA.

Unfortunately this is correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Any mention of how much the bill is?....as i understand it some of the players mentioned collected a month or twos wages before they walked, should this not be the subject of an employment tribunal rather than some sfa panel....far to much of this football bodies thinking they are a law unto themselves...this is an employment law issue should really not be anything to do with the sf..fukin a..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I'm gonna get savaged here but feck it.............

I think the SFA are right here, well to an extent. The verdict from the SFA hearing came back in the favour of the players, in this case I would expect the losing party to pick up the legal expenses.

I don't agree with the outcome reached though. I think the players were still contracted to the club. They left it too late after the TUPE to object in my opinion.

I think we would win if we took it to court, but I don't think it's worth the hassle to be honest.

Remember the SFA are asking for money to go to the players here, not for it to go to the SFA.

This sounds about right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

beat you to it by a post mate.

Like you say, we raised the claim, the players had to pay for legal representation, they won. Nothing unusual with us paying.

Like I say, don't agree with the verdict, but I don't happen to think this is a controversial bill.

So did the SFA hire lawyers on behalf of the players, I thought the SFA represented and worked for Scottish football as a whole, so if the players had lost they'd have to pay the SFA, am I missing something?
Link to post
Share on other sites

They also got payed the last month but left half way in to the month, so payed for four but worked two

Also took a 75% pay cut as well. So they may feel that is fair (I'm not) but that's the way it is with these tratiorous fucks

This is all a storm in a tea cup IMO

Just more sensationalist rangers headlines to catch the bheasts beady eyes in the morning at the local shop on the way to carry oot aisle.

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

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...