I think it's the same regarding any 'celebrities' that have no talents to speak of. I remember during half-time in the Portsmouth away game BBC coverage he said something alike to; "How are Southampton top of the league, they've been average at best so far today". Now either he was fishing for a response with that comment, or he really is just as clueless as he appears.
Have you never thought, after seeing one game, 'well I don't know what all the fuss with them is about?' If not then fair enough, but as somebody who doesn't have sky I very rarely watch a live football match, so if a team over/under performs in a match I do watch I can't help but think 'what the hell are they doing down that end of the league?'
If I ever do that, I swiftly remind myself "Oh well, it's only one game, they must be doing better/worse normally to be in that position" rather than use my ignorance as basis for my opinion that they're over/under performing.
In all seriousness though do you really think he was being that ignorant or was just suggesting that we just weren't playing as well as our league position suggested we should have? I think his main point was that we hadn't played very well in that match (which we didn't, as far as I can remember that match was dire and both sides looked like an average Sunday league side would give them a severe beating). Jake Humphreys certainly isn't the worst sports presenter on TV anyway. Adrian Chiles is awful in a mainstream show, Manish Bhasin has the personality of a soggy potato and Colin Murray tries to turn MOTD2 into a chat show. In my opinion My Humphreys is a solid sports presenter who knows that it's not about him and does his best to let the experts do most of the talking (which imo is what he was doing there, trying to tee Steve Claridge up to explain why we weren't playing as well as expected). Obviously he's no Claire Blading, but nobody is.
If he had written an article or tried to do any sort of journalistic piece on being confused as to how Southampton didn't deserve to be at the top of the league, then it'd be a broadcast of ignorance. As it was, I think it was just a sloppy, lazy way of saying "they've not looked very good today". I don't ever think it's acceptable to genuinely judge a team from one game (or, indeed, one video game as a lot of people do), whether Humphrey was doing this or not, he probably wasn't, but who knows.
Perhaps, but he is certainly somebody who doesn't annoy me as much as he seems to annoy some people. However very few sports presenters/commentators annoy me, I think for the whole of Wimbledon I only really got annoyed at Boris Becker, who seems to be incapable of leaving 5 seconds of silence without filling it with an innane comment. The best TV sports commentators know that you should only speak if you can add something to the pictures.
Employment law is employment law. Footballers have contracts that are different in some ways and they chose to be treated as 'footballers' when it is in their favour. When it is not, they claim they are just like anyone else and should be treated as such.
I think its a moot point, as there is arguably an interesting thing happening in football. While a footballer may be an employee and not an asset (I still have no idea how an employee can be regarded in any way as an asset, and that is speaking as both a lawyer AND an accountant), I think that what may be counted as an asset is his registration, which is actually what transfer fee are paid for. So we now have a situation where although Rangers do not employ Steven Davis (as he is whithin in his rights to refuse to have his contract transferred under TUPE), they still hold his registration (which as an asset would have been transferred to the Newco along with the stadium, the club etc). Interesting case, because without the registration being transferred we cannot play him, even though he has a totally legal contract with us. I don't think it'll come to court, some form of settlement is most likely, but if it did it would be a very interesting question.
Employment law is employment law, but who knows if there are any funny differences FIFA have put in as an independent organisation.
Only an accountant could ever come out with a statement like that Wisey! Employees are the very essence of any business. Without good staff doing a good job, your business won't be trading for long. Regarding Davis, I think we should ask ourselves a question. If you were going to buy a football club that was on its knees, its trading future in the balance and liquidation extremely likely, you would have to be an utter cretin not to establish as fact the precise contractual position of the players. I simply cannot believe that Green omitted this from his planning and subsequent takeover. Therefore I believe it is very likely that the administrators will be in court for misrepresentation. They must have "sold" the players as assets and as I can't see any way of this being enforceable (it's a human rights issue so there is no way the players will ever lose this dispute), Green will tear them a new one in court.
I think that everybody knew the situation, I fail to believe any accountant worth his salt would describe an employee as a bookable asset. My opinion is that Green is just trying it on to see what he can get.
Good points from WS and HB. Lets face it without the players all he is buying is the land and stadium which are not much use on their own. He isn't even buying the name which would have had some value I suppose. Its certainly an interesting case but like the above comments, I can't believe it won't work out in our favour even if there is some compensation involved.
He's buying the club as well don't forget. The Rangers 'brand' is probably the most valuable asset he has bought (considering he probably wouldn't be able to just bulldoze the stadium and buid an office block).
Yet only six players from the entire squad returned for pre-season after being told that doing so would infer acceptance of the Newco offer under TUPE. The club also has a transfer embargo. They therefore have no team. I can't believe that you'd buy a club if you were exposed to that (or believed you might be). Now I take your point about bookable assets (and was only pulling your chain earlier) but I would also suggest that accountants would also have checked if a prospective new owner actually had proof of funds and wasn't a disqualified company director yet look how that panned out with Craig Whyte! There are some very smelly individuals working in and around Ibrox at present.
Honestly, I think his fatal assumption was that the other SPL teams wouldn't decide to cut their noses off. If Rangers were still an SPL club then I think a lot of those players would probably have stayed (although some of them may still have taken their opportunity).
