Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

TheBuilder wrote: »

Its hardly surprising.

You'll be hard pushed to find a rangers fan who isn't accepting division 3 football.

tbh im hard pressed to find one who hasnt had their head in the sand for the last 6 months

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I highly doubt that Thompson ever wanted to vote Yes, he has never hidden his dislike for us.

He likes money more than he hates ye. Wasnt long ago he admitted selling Goodwillie because they were under pressure to service their debt.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79331976&postcount=3290

Rangers FC [in Liquidation] through D&P will vote

Dempsey wrote: »

Is it Rangers or Sevco that is allowed to vote and if its Rangers, who controls that vote, D&P?

D&P hold the vote, but it is assumed that as a condition of the sale, they are to nominate Green to vote as their proxy.

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

It's kind of long winded, but essentially even though they no longer fulfil the requirements to hold an SPL share (and therefore a vote) the share hasn't been transferred or taken away (as will happen if the transfer vote fails) then they as an SPL shareholder still have the right to vote.

It's farcical in truth.

Thats why I said this scenario because the club is being liquidated, its a formality known before the vote. Then again the SPL are voting because they werent arsed writing rules to cover the scenario, no leadership in the halls of hampden.

Dempsey wrote: »

Thats why I said this scenario because the club is being liquidated, its a formality known before the vote. Then again the SPL are voting because they werent arsed writing rules to cover the scenario, no leadership in the halls of hampden.

You think they'd at least have foreseen a situation where a vote was called that only one club was going to be affected (either for the good or bad) and in such situations the club in question should be unable to cast a vote.

Their vote itself is doesn't matter, because it wouldn't ever be replaced with a NO vote... In other words, without it 7 votes should pass the motion rather than 8 ... But it gives the wrong impression that a club in the blatant wrong is given a vote to try and save itself.

Well what did your hero Walter mean when he wish good luck to "The new rangers football club" ?

Players may take legal action regarding contracts and wages? It's hard not to laugh!

From Richard Wilson - The Herald.

Some Rangers players are considering not returning to the club for pre-season training, because they believe it may undermine their position if they wish to object formally to their contract having been transferred to Charles Green's newco.

If the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment procedures have not been properly followed, then the players could take legal action against the newco for 13 weeks' wages, a claim that could amount to £5m in total if all players decided to act.

In an interview on Rangers TV yesterday, Green said that the players' contracts had been transferred to his newco last Thursday, when he bought the business and assets of Rangers Football Club plc. However, under TUPE regulations, staff must be given reasonable notice of the transferral of their contract, to allow them to deliberate, take advice and then decided if they wish to object or not. It is the belief of PFA Scotland, who have been seeking the advice of a QC, that this procedure wasn't followed, and so the newco is open to a legal claim by the players.

"A failure to comply [to TUPE regulations] can result in the recognised union, as is the case regarding the players, seeking a protective award of 13 weeks' pay for each affected union member," said an employment law specialist. "The union would have to raise a claim for a protective award before the Glasgow Employment Tribunal to argue there had been a failure to inform and/or consult with them regarding the affected employees."

Most of the players are angered by Green's failure to speak to them before transferring their contracts. There has been no dialogue with them or their agents, although Green said yesterday that he and manager Ally McCoist will meet the squad when they return for pre-season training on Thursday. However not all of them may turn up. If any are considering rejecting the transfer of the contract, and so wish to leave as a free agent, then turning up for work may prejudice their case. The same would apply to accepting wages, which are also due to be paid on Thursday, although there are serious concerns that Green's consortium has the funds to meet obligations.

"If a player has not formally objected to the transfer before they receive their first wage from newco then there is a risk they may be deemed to have acquiesced to the transfer," the employment law specialist said. "The length of time which has elapsed between the transfer [sale of assets] and the date on which the wage is paid could be a crucial element here.

"I don't think that turning up for training/returning to work from holiday would itself confirm an employee has acquiesced or failed to object to a transfer, but again, if the employee and union have been advised that the transfer has taken place yet a week elapses and no formal objection has been raised, this would weaken the employee's subsequent argument."

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Players may take legal action to recover lost wages? It's hard not to laugh!

From Richard Wilson - The Herald.

Some Rangers players are considering not returning to the club for pre-season training, because they believe it may undermine their position if they wish to object formally to their contract having been transferred to Charles Green's newco.

If the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment procedures have not been properly followed, then the players could take legal action against the newco for 13 weeks' wages, a claim that could amount to £5m in total if all players decided to act.

In an interview on Rangers TV yesterday, Green said that the players' contracts had been transferred to his newco last Thursday, when he bought the business and assets of Rangers Football Club plc. However, under TUPE regulations, staff must be given reasonable notice of the transferral of their contract, to allow them to deliberate, take advice and then decided if they wish to object or not. It is the belief of PFA Scotland, who have been seeking the advice of a QC, that this procedure wasn't followed, and so the newco is open to a legal claim by the players.

"A failure to comply [to TUPE regulations] can result in the recognised union, as is the case regarding the players, seeking a protective award of 13 weeks' pay for each affected union member," said an employment law specialist. "The union would have to raise a claim for a protective award before the Glasgow Employment Tribunal to argue there had been a failure to inform and/or consult with them regarding the affected employees."

Most of the players are angered by Green's failure to speak to them before transferring their contracts. There has been no dialogue with them or their agents, although Green said yesterday that he and manager Ally McCoist will meet the squad when they return for pre-season training on Thursday. However not all of them may turn up. If any are considering rejecting the transfer of the contract, and so wish to leave as a free agent, then turning up for work may prejudice their case. The same would apply to accepting wages, which are also due to be paid on Thursday, although there are serious concerns that Green's consortium has the funds to meet obligations.

"If a player has not formally objected to the transfer before they receive their first wage from newco then there is a risk they may be deemed to have acquiesced to the transfer," the employment law specialist said. "The length of time which has elapsed between the transfer [sale of assets] and the date on which the wage is paid could be a crucial element here.

"I don't think that turning up for training/returning to work from holiday would itself confirm an employee has acquiesced or failed to object to a transfer, but again, if the employee and union have been advised that the transfer has taken place yet a week elapses and no formal objection has been raised, this would weaken the employee's subsequent argument."

The SPFA will be earning their wages for a while yet!

Dempsey wrote: »

Sevco need 8 clubs to vote yes for Rangers SPL share to be transferred to Sevco.

Is it Rangers or Sevco that is allowed to vote and if its Rangers, who controls that vote, D&P?

So Dundee Utd and Hearts are definitely voting 'No'.

...as things stand, what way are other 9 clubs voting?

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4388189/Hoops-Im-20million-short-for-Rangers-bid.html

TAX-DODGING tycoon Stephen McKenna told last night how he pulled out of trying to buy Rangers because he would need an extra £20MILLION to secure the club’s future.

Rangers really need £20million to £30million to move forward — that is how bad it is.

So basically, they sounded out a bid before they did any form of due diligence and are now looking to merge with other consortium/businessmen to add they necessary weight to their plans. Sounds similar to Charles Green's tactic, no?

Aberdeen say NO

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Because the license is with the company.

The 2 are one and the same from the moment the company was formed to run it. If they are 2 seperate entities then it's a little odd that the entity that owns the playing staff isn't the entity that uses them.
You can swerve and sidestep and claim what you like... But every man and his wife knows that the Company you supported, (in morderm day football ALL the big clubs are Companies now), it died and it's assets where sold to a new company that was set up in a different country by a man with no physical or emotional attachment to the club from which he bought the assets.

Nobody can ever erase the history of your defunct club (bar stripping a number of honours)... But nobody shall ever be able to truthfully add to it either.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Lord Guthrie would disagree.

Only last month we had 2 Lords disagreeing on the transfer embargo! Now all it takes is 1 Lord saying something to set things in stone? :rolleyes:

Rangers are a SPL club, SPL clubs are voting whether to give that share to a newco or allow another club into the SPL. The liquidation of Rangers and transferring of the share to a newco makes it a different club.

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont

Lord Hodge orders inquiry into Duff and Phelps appointment as Rangers administrators

As expected, their attempt at administration was/is farcical!