http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18696402 Just posted on the BBC site. The Scottish PFA basically share the same view as the players. They haven't transfered their contracts across to the Newco, so they are free agents
Green is trying in vain to hold onto the assets of Rangers. The EPL has clout and power whereas his club has no standing whatsoever due to its financial irresponsibility.
I'm sorry but that is absolute nonsense - why did you make-up that? Employment contracts, as with all contracts are based upon equity of relationship and legal intent. Unless they can be shown to be unilaterally unfair they are enforceable. Inducement to break a contract is actinable by a claim for unliquidated damages - everyday, lawyers have to deal with such claims normally for Senior Management positions within business. There is no such right under English Employment Law (incidentally there is no such thing as what you call UK Law) to 'earn a living' - the closest such right is actually from Common Law and even then this is disputed as it was a right created through Magna Carta but I won't bore you with the details of that. Such a Common Law right has no impication upon contract law relating to termination rights in a case based upon TUPE. Nor does what is commonly referred to under EC Law as the 'right to make a living' - which has no bearing upon in force contracts which are mutually beneficial. From what I understand of the Rangers' situation, they are not disputing the rights under TUPE but 1) The process for exercising those rights 2)That players contractually agreed to waive certain rights (I don't know the details) in exchange for reduced transfer fees. 3) That the rights establshed by virtue of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 do not apply as the conditions for what constitutes a 'businsss transfer'' have not been met. The option to opt out of a TUPE transfer is rarely exercised as the intention of the legislation is to protect employees not grant new rights - however the right only exists up to the time of the transfer and that if an employee has not objected by that time then the right to object is lost, which is part of the Rangers' argument. As we have discussed under different topics, FIFA precludes recourse to civil courts for actions relating to football disputes - although Rangers have indeed made application to The Court of Session on a different issue. Ultimatly, unless Rangers wants to risk being banned from footballing activities, FIFA will make the ruling which will not be based upon provisions of TUPE anyway.
Davrid a) Seriously, chill out. There is no need to write like that. b) As you say, we don't know what's gone on here, but I'm not sure your points about the issue are entirely correct: This gives an outline of what we do know: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18569993 Evidently a "business transfer" has occurred. The dispute appears to consist entirely of whether the players have failed to raise their objection in time, with the counter argument being that they weren't given the opportunity to raise an objection when they should have been.
Rob. I am merely stating what I know to be Rangers' avowed position at various times - I'm not convinced a 'business transfer' had occured at the time of making the objection - this is the point, not whether one has now been made but I'm not close enough to it to know. But the point of my post was legal structure in highlighting: 1) the inaccuracies of what has been posted here about Employment Law - and, yes, most of it is nonsense. I simply have no idea why someone would post drivel without any foundation in fact. 2) TUPE is not as straighforward as some would have you believe 3) Ultimately, the resolution has nothing to do with TUPE anyway.
Actually all legal authority of the EU is a consequence of the EC Treaty - and this is how it is still known by lawyers who work in the area.
i didn't understand any of it but i do like to ride the TUPE in london sometimes. it helps me get around
Oh and I did know it used to be called the EC. Just when I studied it earlier this year we all called it the EU. As does almost every lay person.
And your point is what? I think you completely missed the point I was making ie we lawyers generally refer to legislative bodies by the statue of incorporation, not by the prevailing name of the organisation....
I thought the glue might explain his performance during his 12 years at Norwich...clueless and hopeless.
