Shuggy 1,308 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Yet another reason to leave this mickey mouse league setup. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mason boyne 40 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Aye the end is nigh for the SFA and SPHELLLLL, where is the verdict from this supposed dispute Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnHardie 1,405 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 This is beyond ridiculous. We need to fight back. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right_To_Censor 1,951 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 once again because there little organisation is about to go tits up they're looking for us to help them out, go and fuck yerselfs ya greedy taig pricks Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain of the ship 26 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 yip. time to get out this micky mouse set up.A year to cook this up, common Charles don,t settle until they are all ousted. corrupt ba****** and they are not even trying to hide it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAVIE8CH 296 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Charlie should release a statement. you,re getting S F A Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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 mmmmmmmmmmDid we not raise the action against the players? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Ignotus 49 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I'm a bit short of readies at the moment. Could Rangers dosh up for me too please, is that how it works? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMB 14,167 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Long Shadow 18 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The BBC do my tits in, any time they are mentioned just think aw fuck what now? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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 mmmmmmmmmmDid 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The SFA sending Rangers a legal bill for the TUPE case is understandable, it's the SPL bill that is not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayrshirebear73 27 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 The SFA sending Rangers a legal bill for the TUPE case is understandable, it's the SPL bill that is not.Absolutely. The SPL bill is ridiculous. They must have known we would not pay it, fuck knows what they are playing at. Trying to paint us as the bad guys again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mason boyne 40 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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 companythis 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 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cammyfraserrfc 5 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faircity 186 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 ...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.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djbroxybear 660 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutonblue 1,974 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 They also got payed the last month but left half way in to the month, so payed for four but worked two Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,011 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 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? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCPRANGERS1 2,997 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Starting to wonder when all of this shite is gonna end.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wearethepeople1 3,897 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 They also got payed the last month but left half way in to the month, so payed for four but worked twoAlso 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 fucksThis 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgers 735 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 Its all about the timing, this barrage has started while the reconstruction talks are going on, its deflectors at full, while the cartel twist arms to get the result they want. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutonblue 1,974 Posted April 4, 2013 Share Posted April 4, 2013 I'm sure it was a pay deferral ? Until we were up an running , and money was payed back ? 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.