The Easdale's

[super_ally_rfc]

Why do you have to continually attempt to legitimise the recent pro-Rangers corruption in the Scottish game by blethering on about ASA judgements and your 15 other sources nonsense, when the laws which apply are continually quoted to you. A boy on a website is not proof of anything, certainly not of whether development costs apply when a company/club has been liquidated.

the law you quoted didnt apply because the players tuped over to newco months before oct 2012 which is when rangers went into liquidation - i explained this in the last post which you ignored

everyone everywhere says they tuped over (even reve admits it in the post above when he says they transferred over) - its accepted fact

youve dug yourself into a masive hole here just accept it and move on - the argument is not about whether they tuped over - its whether or not tupe applies just to the player or the company as well

just admit it you fecked up

[happytim]

its just a pity oldco rangers debt didny tupe over as well.

the corrupt scottish fa will make sure rangers get the maximum amount.

[Mook1]

I fancy Brazil to beat Croatia 2-0.

Edit - wrong thread

[super_ally_rfc]

For once, daft erse should have stuck to 'the tribunal will decide what Rangers will get' and move on. I can see this being another 15-pager of ally blethering oot his erse, I mean, saying that everyone on 'both sides' has agreed players 'tuped over'

Folk on here are more intersted in the Celtic fans's toupe which Lennon was mystified by

you made an absolute rip roaring **** of it, still denying tupe happened?

Fraser Wishart, PFA chief executive: ‘We are delighted to note that both Mr Charles Green and Duff and Phelps agree with the union’s position that the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) applies to the players’ contracts of employment in the event of a transfer from The Rangers FC PLC to a newco.’


form the bbc

Q: Can players lawfully object to their contracts being transferred?

A: This is fundamental to the debate, with the key parties involved holding contrasting vi

[DeezAreGood]

Why do you have to continually attempt to legitimise the recent pro-Rangers corruption in the Scottish game by blethering on about ASA judgements and your 15 other sources nonsense, when the laws which apply are continually quoted to you. A boy on a website is not proof of anything, certainly not of whether development costs apply when a company/club has been liquidated.

the law you quoted didnt apply because the players tuped over to newco months before oct 2012 which is when rangers went into liquidation - i explained this in the last post which you ignored

everyone everywhere says they tuped over (even reve admits it in the post above when he says they transferred over) - its accepted fact

youve dug yourself into a masive hole here just accept it and move on - the argument is not about whether they tuped over - its whether or not tupe applies just to the player or the com

[super_ally_rfc]

Scotzine is not the most reliable of references.

no arguments there, however it gives a simple explanation which deez clearly needs if he is seriously trying to argue against established fact that the players tuped over, every other person on both sides of the arguement has been able to grasp this simple point apart from him

heres a quote from wishart on the world player union site explaining that it did happen, a quick google will show that absoultly no-one disagrees that the players tuped over

Fraser Wishart, PFA chief executive: iWe are delighted to note that both Mr Charles Green and Duff and Phelps agree with the unionis position that the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (iTUPEi) applies to the playersi contracts of employment in the event of a transfer from The Rangers FC PLC to a newco.

[ZombieSkelper]

Let's forget all this nonsense and wish sevco a happy 2nd birthday.

[super_ally_rfc]

Why do you have to continually attempt to legitimise the recent pro-Rangers corruption in the Scottish game by blethering on about ASA judgements and your 15 other sources nonsense, when the laws which apply are continually quoted to you. A boy on a website is not proof of anything, certainly not of whether development costs apply when a company/club has been liquidated.

the law you quoted didnt apply because the players tuped over to newco months before oct 2012 which is when rangers went into liquidation - i explained this in the last post which you ignored

everyone everywhere says they tuped over (even reve admits it in the post above when he says they transferred over) - its accepted fact

youve dug yourself into a masive hole here just accept it and move on - the argument is not about whether they tuped over - its whether

[happytim]

the new company that owns rangers are not entitled to 7 years of a development fee for charlie telfer.

they havent been in business for 7 years, a point im sure the utd chairman will bring up.

so stop spouting the same pysh ally.

telfer entered into a new contract when he tuped over. if he didnt then why would the others be allowed to walk away.

telfer has been 2 years at rangers newco.

[DeezAreGood]

So, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker, Rhys McCabe and Sone Aluko, the first players to object, are exercising their right under those regulations.

TUPE protects the employees, not the employers, you utter mug. Those guys would have still walked even if Chuckie had carried out his threat to sue them. What Fraser Wishart says means f*ck all, what Chuckie and the belters at Duffers (criminal prosecutions coming for them), what some boy on a website says means f*ck all, what you say means f*ck all. Now, show me where The Rangers are entitled to development costs