or to join or start a new Discussion

Articles/all comments
These 312 comments are related to an article called:

Dundee United rubbing it in.

Page 3 of 13

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

Before people criticise the man he is only looking out for his club and stating the same case as the likes of Naismith, McGregor and Lafferty for example.

----------------

If he TUPE'd over then it's not like those three though...

posted on 8/6/14

Some facts n that cue-bit bit bit.

comment by Timmy (U14278)

posted on 8/6/14

comment by Marcelino- Endavant Villarreal! (U6171)
posted 12 seconds ago
The argument about whether it is the same club is irrelevant in this instance, because Telfer is an employee of the company.

That company can only claim to have had him on their books since 2012 when they received his contract from the old company, I think this is where Thompson is sensing an opportunity to reduce the costs.

Before people criticise the man he is only looking out for his club and stating the same case as the likes of Naismith, McGregor and Lafferty for example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sound logic but you have to remember rangers fans no longer deal in the real world. The end no longer means the end and the company running a football club is irrelevant.

Except of course when you are trying to starve that company out with a season ticket boycott.

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

Puyol

Seems like all those websites are written by the establishment......

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

Sound logic but you have to remember rangers fans no longer deal in the real world. The end no longer means the end and the company running a football club is irrelevant.

Except of course when you are trying to starve that company out with a season ticket boycott.

----------------------



posted on 8/6/14

I love how dundee united fans and their chaiman is wumming the gers..

Seriously Rangers...get yer fking act together..

posted on 8/6/14

comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Before people criticise the man he is only looking out for his club and stating the same case as the likes of Naismith, McGregor and Lafferty for example.

----------------

If he TUPE'd over then it's not like those three though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, so once he TUPE'd over he only 'joined' that company in 2012, surely?

He may play for the club- and whether you want to argue if it's the same club is down to opinion, I'd argue it probably is- but the company pay the wages and he can only claim to be on their books since 2012 which would probably impact a compensation fee.

I may be wrong, and so may United, but I think it is perfectly acceptable to make that argument and try to reduce costs for Dundee United.

posted on 8/6/14

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Timmy (U14278)

posted on 8/6/14

None of those clubs started again, rangers did.

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

He may play for the club- and whether you want to argue if it's the same club is down to opinion, I'd argue it probably is- but the company pay the wages and he can only claim to be on their books since 2012 which would probably impact a compensation fee.

------------------

Don't think so.

TUPE protects your service.

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

I'm starting to think Timmy could be RR.......

comment by Timmy (U14278)

posted on 8/6/14

Thomson argument isn't that he tuped over it is that you have only been in existence for 2 years. Legally he is right.

comment by atheist (U2783)

posted on 8/6/14

timmy reminds me of toefinenow.

posted on 8/6/14

I see you still can't follow things Timmy. Never mind kid. Try google for what happened to Leeds, Leicester and Boro. All exactly the same as Rangers.

Here's the legal document for Leeds and the football league

http://www.football-league.co.uk/staticFiles/4b/ec/0,,10794~126027,00.pdf

You see Timmy I - unlike yourself have a done my research, as well as having a legal background.

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

Rangers argument is that he TUPEd over. Legally they are right.

<futile this>

posted on 8/6/14

Castle / deBear

If they don't get it by now they never will. You're dealing with a guy who says Rangers should sell Ibrox and build a smaller stadium FFS. It's all been explained over and over and over again. Some people should just let it go...

posted on 8/6/14

I know guys in the security industry who have tupe'd to another company and I don't know any who have claimed to still work for the same company.

I think we're right to pursue this in the sense that Thompson has a responsibility to do the best he can for the club. It's a shame it's gone public though which I assume is of Rangers doing.

comment by atheist (U2783)

posted on 8/6/14

rats, this is what timmy lives for.

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

Rats

It's in our interest to keep him talking.

If you know what I mean

comment by Timmy (U14278)

posted on 8/6/14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_United_A.F.C.

Ouch... no mention of them having to start again.

posted on 8/6/14

comment by atheist (U2783)
posted 1 minute ago
timmy reminds me of a total fud now.

Fixed

comment by deBear (U8633)

posted on 8/6/14

I know guys in the security industry who have tupe'd to another company and I don't know any who have claimed to still work for the same company.

----------------

So they lost any length of pensionable service then?

posted on 8/6/14

All joking aside Rangers are the same club.
Celtic fans who try and deny it are the same people who sit and obsess about everything Rangers do...get a fking life ffs!!

They are still the ugly orks they have always been,

tho now they are just a complete joke that everybody points at and laughs.

posted on 8/6/14

It is certainly not the same company- one of the companies is a going concern and the previous is in the process of being liquidated by BDO.

I understand the same club argument from the information I have seen so far, albeit I am not qualified to give an informed opinion either way, but it's definitely two different companies and this is United's argument.

I do not think anyone can blame United for trying to reduce their costs when they feel they have a case. They may not have a case, but it is best to wait until the legal people involved clarify that for all concerned. It would be ridiculous to pay £200,000 when you feel that it should be much less than that.

comment by Timmy (U14278)

posted on 8/6/14

comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 2 minutes ago
I know guys in the security industry who have tupe'd to another company and I don't know any who have claimed to still work for the same company.

I think we're right to pursue this in the sense that Thompson has a responsibility to do the best he can for the club. It's a shame it's gone public though which I assume is of Rangers doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly why should he give rangers money just so that they can keep this pretence going.

He wouldn't have taken this stance without speaking to his lawyers first.

Page 3 of 13

Sign in if you want to comment