Rangers FC On Field Gossip & Rumour Thread 2017 Mod Note in OP(Updated 14/08)

Eirebear wrote: »

It's funny how Celtic fans have a tendency to believe everything they read in the paper isn't it?

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Well, Traynor did actually write that in his column so im not sure what you're getting at

Eirebear wrote: »

My point being, that we (as in all of us) have a naturaly tendancy to hold opinions and statements that either back up our own opinion or support or argument in some way.
Unfortunately Bhosca is too busy overestimating his own intelligence to get that though.

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. Hope Green takes them for everything they are worth.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

No I actually won't 'forget it', the likes of this is linked to Catholicism, anyone claiming that it's not is full of ****.
And yes, Celtic fans do display this (not only that, but it's been put on the shirts as well by the club)

So anyone claiming that it's Rangers who bring religion into football is at it.

Eirebear wrote: »

Aluko, Naismith, McGregor and a few of the current squad were all on twitter yesterday saying they hadn't a clue what it was all about.
Seem's like the PFA are up to something here, rather than the players individually.

STV/PFA statement wrote:

The statement said: “For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only. It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player let alone some 67 individual players as has been reported.

“It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instructions. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name. PFA Scotland regularly represents its members as a collective - for example when speaking to the football governing bodies.”

blahfckingblah wrote: »

p.s im not sure if anyone accused rangers of bringing religion into the equation

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

In that case, aren't we all the people then? Are you guys happy bringing religion into football?

General Relativity wrote: »

Point me to the part I said that. I said it had nothing to do with Catholicism.

AMID a great deal of confusion and high anxiety it seems another cluster bomb has gone off inside Ibrox.

The news of a potential courtroom battle with Scotland’s players’ union exploded into the public domain on Monday evening after a legal claim involving 67 current and former players was documented inside the glossy pages of the brochure Charles Green is using to woo would-be investors.

Green, of course, has dismissed it all as b******s in just the way we have come to expect of this dyed-in-the-wool Yorkshireman who says what he likes and likes what he bloody well says.

But the more the smoke began to clear last night the more it appeared he has a point. And a bloody good one.

By teatime, after another hectic day of statements and counter statements, this latest legal wrangle to rock the old red brick facade was degenerating into something of a farce.

Rangers captain Lee McCulloch spoke exclusively to Record Sport to confirm that, far from giving PFA Scotland a mandate to go after Green, he and his team-mates were horrified at the very thought of it.

No wonder. McCulloch, remember, was prepared to offer his services for free not that many months ago when Rangers were being smashed into oblivion by Craig Whyte.

Now, here he is, open to accusations of opportunism and plain old money grabbing. So it was only too right he had his say last night when he told why he would never dream of sanctioning such a selfish, greedy move.

But this was, to a large extent, to be expected. What was not so obvious or easy to see coming was the clamour among his team-mates, new and old, to completely disassociate themselves from the union’s bidding.

By McCulloch’s reckoning all 18 of those who stayed behind last summer wish to play no part in it.

Neil Alexander and Lee Wallace – the only other senior pros left over from Whyte’s brutal regime – are standing shoulder to shoulder with their captain.

But they are not alone. In fact, they were rushing in from all corners yesterday to insist they too have no desire to go after a penny of Green’s money.

Some of what went on was beyond bizarre.

Sone Aluko, for example, one of three players who as the club also states in its own prospectus, is currently taking it to court claiming constructive dismissal. Not true according to Aluko’s own Twitter feed yesterday.

It said: “I don’t have, nor am I interested in, any claims, tribunals or anything of that nature against anyone. It's not my style. I proved this in 2011 and nothing changed in 2012. It’s a messy route no one gains from.”

Then we received information from people close to Steven Naismith and Steven Whittaker that neither of them endorse the union’s case or have any intention of asking for money, which really would have been an act of obscenity given they are now among the high rollers of the Premier League.

Allan McGregor too knows nothing of this and wants nothing to do with it, at least according to the Twitter account of the mother of his child that is – and who are we to disbelieve her?

John Fleck is another who has no interest in the proceedings.

As one by one they ruled themselves out, the more this whole charade was exposed as a rather clumsy piece of tactical tub-thumping.

The real crux of this matter has nothing to do with 67 players. In fact, Rangers are believed to be enraged by what they regard as brinkmanship from the union. Sources inside Ibrox have even cast serious doubt over the large number of contracts that have been set aside for a possible tribunal. If they had 67 players on their books then where were they hiding all the good ones?

No, the real battle here is more likely to concern just six players and it’s one both sides are determined to win. Or at least not to lose.

Wishart wants to force Rangers to stop chasing after cash Green believes the club are due from the summer moves of McGregor, Kyle Lafferty, Aluko, Naismith, Whittaker and Jamie Ness – who he believes were guilty of breaching their contracts by moving on as free agents.

But Fraser Wishart and PFA Scotland’s legal team vehemently disagree.

Wishart released a statement of his own yesterday in which he hinted strongly he will drop the “Big Players’ Case” immediately if Green backs down on his demands to chase after damages from the “The Wee Players’ Case”.

Green has left that one with the great minds of the SFA who will arbitrate just as soon as their New Year hangovers have cleared, or January 7 to be exact.

But if they should attempt to stop him chasing after the players and their new clubs in search of recompense then, as Green said yesterday, he will take it to the law lords for approval.

In his own statement Green made it clear he has no intention of backing down on his claims for compensation over the deals that saw McGregor join Besiktas, Lafferty head to Sion, Aluko to Hull and Whittaker, Naismith and Ness move to the Premiership with Norwich, Everton and Stoke.

Green said: “In reality, we are talking about six players who have some form of dispute rather than 67.

“Rangers fans will note how the club captain Lee McCulloch and a number of other players have quickly disassociated themselves from this action. I have also had the father of one player calling, quite furious his young son has been attached to an action he knew nothing about.

“PFA Scotland has confirmed as much in its statement earlier today. That statement confirms the failure to consult claim, apparently lodged for the benefit of 67 players, will be withdrawn if the club’s SFA damages claim against the six players is dropped.

“The purpose of the failure to consult claim is therefore not to safeguard the rights of the 67 players but to attempt to persuade the club to abandon its legitimate pursuit of compensation from players who, in the club's view, walked out on their contracts of employment.”

Wishart, though, insists fundamental rules of employment were broken when Green first pieced together his deal to buy the club’s assets for £5.5million from administrators Duff and Phelps.

He maintains his members were not properly informed or consulted throughout the process that saw their contracts transferred under TUPE regulation from oldco to newco.

And, in this regard, he has a bloody good point too. There was a breakdown in communication between boardroom and dressing room throughout that traumatic period as the club sank.

But given none of these players seems even remotely bothered about it now – with most just relieved to be in a better place than at Ibrox or elsewhere – and given he appears ready and willing to horse-trade it for something else, the mandate for such action may already be fatally flawed.

Madam wrote: »

Ah well - its from the Daily Record and we believe everything we read from that source:rolleyes:

Eirebear wrote: »

In what way did he buy the history?
I'm genuine here - he bought the club's assets, and with that, apparently, came the "history", i've never quite understood that.

For me, you cannot buy history, even if the SPL/SFA had decided to wipe every title won by Rangers out as null and void, the history of the club would still exist within the fans, the players and everything else surrounding the club.

The horrors of the last few years are part of our history also, everything that led to the club being where it is now - same club, or not.