FFS Timmy the Sunday Post whits Hen Broon saying about it all?
Says the Daily Mail's no.1 customer
The status of Rangers seems to change dependent on the situation. if Rangers had owed DU money from before, i am sure Rangers would have been liable for that.
Rangers had to pay the oldco footballing debts
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Aye but the Daily Mail says....
Steven Thompson
He loves skelping the orks just as much as us Tims.
Jeez when was the last time I mentioned the Daily Mail?
I was merely pointing out naebody but their granny reads the Sunday feckin post awright!
Never got into the anti Utd thing but this clown is just fanning the flames. No need for it considering what WWBB said above.
I think this would be correct, as Telfer is an employee of the company and did not TUPE over until 2012 obviously. It is the same reason why the likes of Naismith and McGregor were free-agents, because the corporate time line was altered.
comment by atheist (U2783)
posted 48 seconds ago
Never got into the anti Utd thing but this clown is just fanning the flames. No need for it considering what WWBB said above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he should just hand over money that he legally doesn't have to?
"if Rangers had owed DU money from before, i am sure Rangers would have been liable for that."
They did. And we got it. Although it was part of the deal that allowed the newco into the league - they had to settle the old club's footballing debts.
Incidentally, did The Rangers ever give their share of the ticket money (from the 3-0 game) to charity?
The money doesn't matter, salary would only greet his eyes oot to bring in a useless dud with it, the fact we've let him leave in the first place is the biggest outrage here. The fact that its to them even worse in all honesty.
Doesn't matter though, we've got that phanny Miller. Only at Rangers, makes me sick.
"You have got to love this guy, he knows how to wind the rangers fans up".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should ask him for some tips.
Actually, there's another precedent. Remember when the likes of Naismith & Whittaker "broke their contract", and Green said he'd pursue legal action against them, did anything ever come of that?
Thompson on very firm ground here.
Rangers fans can claim it is the same club as it doesn't harm anyone, but you can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
You also can't keep getting wound up everytime someone says you are a new club. You claim the tax bill is nothing to do with you so I don't see how player development is anything to do with you.
They did. And we got it. Although it was part of the deal that allowed the newco into the league - they had to settle the old club's footballing debts.
__________________________
Yes but that was not a legal issue as to the same club or whether they owed debts. Had rangers new owning company sevco (name at the time) refused to pay those debts nothing could legally be done. Being blackmailed/forced to pay the debts is not legal precedent.
Secondly the legal issue here is not whether Rangers are the same club either, it's factually incorrect journalism.
It's nothing to do with the likes of Naismith etc either.
Point 1) Whether Rangers are the same club is legally not in doubt under UK law. As has been confirmed by every review, case and investigation. It's basic UK law regarding exciting administration via prepack Newco.
Point 2) When a business is sold to a new owning company. Employees at the time can object and release themselves from their contracts. As a new term and employer has been created. Making the previous employment contract null and void. If any employees object they can leave with no issues provided they say at the time and don't go back into work (thus consenting by action) once the new owners are in place, such as McGregor Naismith etc.
Point 3) Telfer went into work and thus consented to the new owning company of the club and thus consented to his new employees in action. Chances are he signed a new contract anyway.
Dundee Utd will 100% lose this one.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
And I thought they banned bair baiting in the 1800's
On a serious note could be an interesting case as you can bet DU will be taking it very serious and from a stricktly legal perspective. Will be curious to see how it ends up as the panels decision will be the first legal test of the old or new debate
Rangers fans can claim it is the same club as it doesn't harm anyone, but you can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
------------
Every lawyer, judge, court, governing body, ASA etc etc etc has gone along with it as it's legal fact. Everyone bar opposition fans who have zero background in law has gone along with it. Funny that.
____
You also can't keep getting wound up everytime someone says you are a new club. You claim the tax bill is nothing to do with you so I don't see how player development is anything to do with you.
--------------
The tax bill is nothing to do with us. It's UK law. New owning companies of old businesses don't owe bills for previous owners. Bills are 'settled' upon time of purchase using the money the business was bought for. It's the same for 100% of businesses across the UK in the same position.
New owning companies do however own assets and employee contracts of previous employees. Provided they don't object at the time. Again it's UK law.
I wouldn't mind, but not one of you know taking the opposite view know what you are on about legally, nor have you looked into it. You just don't want to face facts as it doesn't suit your wrong 'agendas'. You've had two years to look into it. It's been explained over and over. There is no excuse for willful stupidity.
But Rangers didn't exit administration; they went into liquidation. That's past the point of no return. The new club have never been in administration. There was no transition period out of administration that other clubs have gone through.
comment by Drunken Hobo (U7360)
posted 9 seconds ago
But Rangers didn't exit administration; they went into liquidation. That's past the point of no return. The new club have never been in administration. There was no transition period out of administration that other clubs have gone through.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangers fans choose to ignore this obvious point as it doesn't suit their new club old club debate.
Rangers were liquidated that is why all those players could leave for nothing.
it was ra kompany no the club that got liquidated but
Sign in if you want to comment
Dundee United rubbing it in.
Page 1 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 8/6/14
FFS Timmy the Sunday Post whits Hen Broon saying about it all?
posted on 8/6/14
Says the Daily Mail's no.1 customer
posted on 8/6/14
The status of Rangers seems to change dependent on the situation. if Rangers had owed DU money from before, i am sure Rangers would have been liable for that.
Rangers had to pay the oldco footballing debts
posted on 8/6/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/6/14
Aye but the Daily Mail says....
posted on 8/6/14
Steven Thompson
He loves skelping the orks just as much as us Tims.
posted on 8/6/14
Jeez when was the last time I mentioned the Daily Mail?
I was merely pointing out naebody but their granny reads the Sunday feckin post awright!
posted on 8/6/14
Never got into the anti Utd thing but this clown is just fanning the flames. No need for it considering what WWBB said above.
posted on 8/6/14
I think this would be correct, as Telfer is an employee of the company and did not TUPE over until 2012 obviously. It is the same reason why the likes of Naismith and McGregor were free-agents, because the corporate time line was altered.
posted on 8/6/14
comment by atheist (U2783)
posted 48 seconds ago
Never got into the anti Utd thing but this clown is just fanning the flames. No need for it considering what WWBB said above.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So he should just hand over money that he legally doesn't have to?
posted on 8/6/14
"if Rangers had owed DU money from before, i am sure Rangers would have been liable for that."
They did. And we got it. Although it was part of the deal that allowed the newco into the league - they had to settle the old club's footballing debts.
Incidentally, did The Rangers ever give their share of the ticket money (from the 3-0 game) to charity?
posted on 8/6/14
No they didn't.
posted on 8/6/14
The money doesn't matter, salary would only greet his eyes oot to bring in a useless dud with it, the fact we've let him leave in the first place is the biggest outrage here. The fact that its to them even worse in all honesty.
Doesn't matter though, we've got that phanny Miller. Only at Rangers, makes me sick.
posted on 8/6/14
"You have got to love this guy, he knows how to wind the rangers fans up".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should ask him for some tips.
posted on 8/6/14
Actually, there's another precedent. Remember when the likes of Naismith & Whittaker "broke their contract", and Green said he'd pursue legal action against them, did anything ever come of that?
Thompson on very firm ground here.
posted on 8/6/14
Rangers fans can claim it is the same club as it doesn't harm anyone, but you can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
You also can't keep getting wound up everytime someone says you are a new club. You claim the tax bill is nothing to do with you so I don't see how player development is anything to do with you.
posted on 8/6/14
They did. And we got it. Although it was part of the deal that allowed the newco into the league - they had to settle the old club's footballing debts.
__________________________
Yes but that was not a legal issue as to the same club or whether they owed debts. Had rangers new owning company sevco (name at the time) refused to pay those debts nothing could legally be done. Being blackmailed/forced to pay the debts is not legal precedent.
Secondly the legal issue here is not whether Rangers are the same club either, it's factually incorrect journalism.
It's nothing to do with the likes of Naismith etc either.
Point 1) Whether Rangers are the same club is legally not in doubt under UK law. As has been confirmed by every review, case and investigation. It's basic UK law regarding exciting administration via prepack Newco.
Point 2) When a business is sold to a new owning company. Employees at the time can object and release themselves from their contracts. As a new term and employer has been created. Making the previous employment contract null and void. If any employees object they can leave with no issues provided they say at the time and don't go back into work (thus consenting by action) once the new owners are in place, such as McGregor Naismith etc.
Point 3) Telfer went into work and thus consented to the new owning company of the club and thus consented to his new employees in action. Chances are he signed a new contract anyway.
Dundee Utd will 100% lose this one.
posted on 8/6/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 8/6/14
And I thought they banned bair baiting in the 1800's
On a serious note could be an interesting case as you can bet DU will be taking it very serious and from a stricktly legal perspective. Will be curious to see how it ends up as the panels decision will be the first legal test of the old or new debate
posted on 8/6/14
bear even
posted on 8/6/14
posted on 8/6/14
Rangers fans can claim it is the same club as it doesn't harm anyone, but you can't expect everyone else to go along with it.
------------
Every lawyer, judge, court, governing body, ASA etc etc etc has gone along with it as it's legal fact. Everyone bar opposition fans who have zero background in law has gone along with it. Funny that.
____
You also can't keep getting wound up everytime someone says you are a new club. You claim the tax bill is nothing to do with you so I don't see how player development is anything to do with you.
--------------
The tax bill is nothing to do with us. It's UK law. New owning companies of old businesses don't owe bills for previous owners. Bills are 'settled' upon time of purchase using the money the business was bought for. It's the same for 100% of businesses across the UK in the same position.
New owning companies do however own assets and employee contracts of previous employees. Provided they don't object at the time. Again it's UK law.
I wouldn't mind, but not one of you know taking the opposite view know what you are on about legally, nor have you looked into it. You just don't want to face facts as it doesn't suit your wrong 'agendas'. You've had two years to look into it. It's been explained over and over. There is no excuse for willful stupidity.
posted on 8/6/14
But Rangers didn't exit administration; they went into liquidation. That's past the point of no return. The new club have never been in administration. There was no transition period out of administration that other clubs have gone through.
posted on 8/6/14
comment by Drunken Hobo (U7360)
posted 9 seconds ago
But Rangers didn't exit administration; they went into liquidation. That's past the point of no return. The new club have never been in administration. There was no transition period out of administration that other clubs have gone through.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangers fans choose to ignore this obvious point as it doesn't suit their new club old club debate.
Rangers were liquidated that is why all those players could leave for nothing.
posted on 8/6/14
it was ra kompany no the club that got liquidated but
Page 1 of 13
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10