What happens if Green instructs his legal bods to dispute the facts in the statement though? I genuinely don't know the full procedure for it, but there must be some way of disputing factual matters. It's not likely to disrupt us this season at all. There's 2 batches of hearings, the class action by the 67 players (including the ones who left) over the communication, and the seperate ones for some of the players who left. The SFA will surely be doing the class action case first as if that goes the way of the players they don't need to hold the other individual hearings. If they do it the other way round they have to hold 3 or 4 individual ones, and then hold a group one for the remaining 63/64 players. Doing the class action first, if the players are likely to be called in to give their account of things either the SFA will arrange it for during the summer, or Rangers won't be holding all the players there to give evidence because the majority of them are the current Rangers squad. How would he just do it? He doesn't schedule the tribunal, the SFA does. It's the volume of players that could influence it. There's a class action by 67 players. I can't see the SFA allowing him to do it, but I think he's suggesting making them all be present all the time so his representatives can call them in whenever they want when making their case rather than doing it all in one go. He's talking about during the tribunal proceedings themselves, not about moving them back to Rangers indefinitely. Nope. What I think you've done is read one of Tickler's posts on the subject and mistakenly thought it was by somebody else who might have had a clue what they were talking about. The SFA were unable to grant clearance because of the contract dispute. FIFA granted temporary clearance for the players pending the outcome of the legal proceedings. As far as I know there are only two of us on here that deal with Scots law to a greater extent than just living in Scotland. One of us above has said they don't deal with personal contract law, and my knowledge is on the academic side as we have to study business and contract law as part of my course. Which basically means I can talk about potential outcomes, but there's nobody who can talk about the liklihood of Rangers winning or losing with anything to base it on. The thing is for the cases involved it's the players taking the club to a tribunal, not the other way round. The class action is the players complaining they weren't properly consulted about the transfer of contracts so they want compo. The seperate ones raised by Aluko and a couple of the other players who left (not a class action as it's not all of them) is that if the first case is won then it was a big enough breach of their contract to let them leave as free agents as it amounted to constructive dismissal. Any compo would be due to the new company. The old company sold all football assets to the new company, this would include any compo awarded by tribunals/court cases saying the players breached their contract as the contracts were footballing assets. From everything I hear, he is.
