Rangers Rumours Archive December 12 2012

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


12 Dec 2012 17:16:28
Heard off my little cousin that he saw a puma strip design in the Murray Park office the other day. I know Adidas are after it aswell?

Believable8 Unbelievable76

Green said we would sign a deal with adidas over 2 months ago,along with the dallas cowboys deal,players from the euros we were signing, £30m in the bank,will name all the investors not hide behind company name,man u wanted us in the EPL,this guy is just saying what we want to hear-share issue we not buying into the club we are buying into a holding company run by green and friend on BIG wages-no shares for this bear

Agree2 Disagree0

1st post - we are hardly going to change to a new strip one third of the way into the season

some people just post utter tosh on here for the sake of it

JG

Agree1 Disagree1

JG...I would suggest that the design will be for next years kit...not this years, which already exists.

Agree0 Disagree0

I cant see there being a team next year never mind a new strip, there is no income (profitable) being generated at the club, we are already living on borrowed time.Its where do we go from here that is a major problem.

Agree2 Disagree1

It costs zip for a strip company to put together a new strip and send through post - please buy it begging letter..it means sod all

Agree0 Disagree0

13 Dec 2012 20:01:03
Could we not get the Admiral gear back we had in the 90s. It was top quality stuff & we won everything with it on!

Agree0 Disagree2

Thatl teach the wee bugger tae use wee pats retro strip copy service!

Agree0 Disagree0

Kappa are the best football tops!

Agree0 Disagree0

16 Dec 2012 23:34:57
Love to see Super Ally in one of those tight Kappa strips!

Agree1 Disagree0

What about prostar ?

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Dec 2012 18:10:25
Green saying he owned ex players and they left to feather their own pockets is insensitive and disgraceful. These heroes gave up 70% of their salaries for 7 months to try and save the club in administration and stop the other 170 employees taking any pay cuts.

There is no legal grounding for old Rangers players being automatically owned by newco Rangers. They had contracts with a liquidated club which become void.

This is another Green made up fight he'll lose. Deliberate and knowing misrepresentation of the situation.

Believable85 Unbelievable41

Green couldnt afford to pay their wages he would have sold them to feather his own pockets

Agree3 Disagree2

No the players had contracts to a club and company which was in administration...not liquidation...the assets and contracts were purchased by green...he has a valid point...players wanted to leave...fine but they were his assets to sell...

Agree3 Disagree2

These money grabbing players do not have a leg to stand on and will be held accountable for their actions

Agree3 Disagree2

O/p what a lot of Colin Nish you are spouting.1).7months try 3months.
2).75% pay cuts they agreed to try and save redundancies not pay cuts for the none playing staff.
3).Heroes? £75 thousand instead of£300000 for 3months awe the wee souls.
4).going by your assumption if they had contracts with old club I would say its with old company why are they still not there as company are still not liquidated ?.

Agree1 Disagree0

....Exactly..if as i,ve read CG bought out the players contracts then we should have got a transfer fee for them...as far as TUPE regulations go ..as i understand it a player has to opt out within a certain time or his contract is still valid..be interseting to see who if any opted out..all this nonesense is to try to get players released from their contracts for free and Oor Charlie is saying we are entitled to a transfer fee...morally no club should be able to waltz in and take your best players for free...cheaper but not free..que the tims trying to explain what moral means..

Agree1 Disagree0

People cant be sold against their will its called slavery any company take over employees have option to transfer or leave

Agree0 Disagree1

12 Dec 2012 21:17:49
the end of the day they might be money grabbers but they have familys to think of would of loved them all to stay but u cant expect the older boys to have stayed maybe the younger boys who left yes but green has a fair case he bought all rangers assets and yes that means players aswell if they wanted to leave so be it but rangers should get something for it only fair to the team

Agree0 Disagree1

Money-grabbing? Did they get the money back that they deferred?

Agree0 Disagree1

The players who left had employment law on their side. Could someone tell this person he cannot buy human beings as an asset.

Agree0 Disagree2

Its not just a case of what green bought its a case of did the seller have the right to sell

Agree0 Disagree1

Too above post! Get their money back? Wud u take a wage cut to keep company going then leave for another company. To then say eh can I get the my 75% back since ur company is arite now? Haha doubt it! I see it this way a new company came in and bought assets from other company including players, happens all the time and players walked out so really Charles green is due money I think players didn't fulfil their contract! Oldco as they say is still not liquidated yet

Agree0 Disagree1

Reading this there is one thing that has not been mentioned, they had to re-negotiate the contracts before the pay cut kicked in, what was in the small print, was not mentioned that if the oldco were to be liquidated that they could walk away

Agree0 Disagree0

Charles is only after the money for the simple fact he knows hes rite.i would let all the players that left be now they sold their soul to their agents let them be move on..kev

Agree1 Disagree0

Why didn't D&P sell the 51 players on the open market and save the club? It would have raised £30m and paid off HMRC £15m straight off. Murray park another £17m to save the club.

Agree0 Disagree0

If so why did clubs pay rangers money for Davis , edu etc if this rubbish ?

Agree0 Disagree0

A brief outline of TUPE and why CG hasnt got a leg to stand on.

TUPE
Employees who are employed in the undertaking which is being transferred have their employment transferred to the new employer. Employees can refuse to transfer (or "opt-out"), but depending on the circumstances of the case, they can lose valuable legal rights if they do. TUPE states that "all the transferor's rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the transferring employees' contracts of employment are transferred to the transferee". This all-embracing concept encompasses rights under the contract of employment, statutory rights and continuity of employment and includes employees' rights to bring a claim against their employer for unfair dismissal, redundancy or discrimination, unpaid wages, bonuses or holidays and personal injury claims etc.
Employees therefore have the legal right to transfer to the new employer on their existing terms and conditions of employment and with all their existing employment rights and liabilities intact (although there are special provisions dealing with old age pensions under occupational pension schemes(David Weir)). Effectively, the new employer steps into the shoes of the old employer and it is as though the employee's contract of employment was always made with the new employer. For this reason it is essential that employers know all about the employees they might inherit if they are planning to take over a contract or buy a business and that they make sure that the contract protects them from any employment liabilities which arose before they became the employer. This is helped by the fact that the old employer is required to provide to the new employer written details of all employee rights and liabilities that will transfer
As the new employer is required to take on the employees on their existing terms and conditions of employment, it is prohibited from making any changes to the terms and conditions of employment of the transferred employees if the sole or principal reason for the variation is the transfer. This is also the case where the sole or principal reason is connected to the transfer, unless there is an ETO reason for the change, usually requiring a change in number of the workforce. This often makes it difficult, if not impossible, for incoming employers to harmonise terms and conditions of employment of staff after a TUPE transfer.
Where an independent trade union has been recognised by the outgoing employer in respect of transferring employees, recognition will transfer to the incoming employer to the same extent.

Ian

Agree0 Disagree0

Edu done the right thing by wanting to leave but transfering his contract to newco and getting a fee for us!

Agree0 Disagree0

If as you seem to believe, Green has no leg to stand on, then why did certain clubs pay compensation and fees for some of the players. I'm sure they all have top legal teams who are a lot more qualified on the subject than anyone posting here and yet they were not advised to disregard what Green was saying, they were clearly advised to pay up or face action, otherwise why would they have paid, no one gives away money when they don't have to.

Agree0 Disagree0

Some clubs paid compo, some did not - so legal opinion divided. Some teams may have done this for good will.

How many clubs CEO in world chasing ex-players.... just one .... why ?

Is he after his share of the fees - is that all ?

Green had terrible reputation at sheffield, not he has terrible reputation (outside ibrox where it counts) and gets 3-month pay off if he has to leave....

These players will never return, and his actions will undermine GERS policy for years to come. Untold damage........

for pennies.

Agree0 Disagree0

TUPE is a complicated rule however it is their to help the employee not the employer. I cant answer why some have paid. As a previous poster said it could be goodwill. However CG would have to prove that he was going to honour the players contracts and not change any off it. I cant see how he could honour the contracts if he said the wage bill would be £7 million. I would say reading between the lines that he wanted the players to transfer over and then make a quick buck selling them as quickly as possible. This seems to have fallen flat on its face as the players are quite within their rights to opt-out.

Ian

Agree0 Disagree0

Seems to me Green is just bitter as the guys left before he could see them off, does anyone really think any of them had any intention of staying ? The most disappointing are the badge kissers who were offski as soon as they could. Mr Lafferty for example.

Agree0 Disagree0

My wifes company we in financial trouble and we bought over by another company, they didnt have an option to transfer over,There terms of employment remained the same, why is this any different from what happened at rangers

Agree0 Disagree1

Your wife and all other employees will have gone through a consultation period with the old and new company. The fact that they transferred to the new company is what should happen as long as the new company are not trying to change your wifes existing contract. On the flip side your wife could have refused to transfer and walked away. That is when it gets messy for outstanding payments etc.

Ian

Agree0 Disagree0

Your wifes company did not get liquidated

Agree0 Disagree0

Listen don't believe Green's previous rubbish about clubs paying. Not one dime has been declared. He had conversations only and others blanked him.
Does anyone think any club paid Green full transfer payments for any of the players?
I don't think a dime changed hands, but if something did it was a token gesture.

Agree0 Disagree0

Charles Green didn't buy the players contracts as the contracts were between the players and the old club/co. He can claim he bought them all he likes but unless the players choose to TUPE over to the new club/co then their contracts with the old club end making them free agents.

Agree0 Disagree0

Above can you explaine if Mr Green did not buy players contracts how come Naismith and the rest who never transferred over as you say can be playing with Everton Stoke Norwich etc when the old co/club are still going??await your expert answer.

Agree0 Disagree0

They can play for other teams as oldco rangers are now a non trading company.

Ian

Agree0 Disagree0

"Above can you explaine if Mr Green did not buy players contracts how come Naismith and the rest who never transferred over as you say can be playing with Everton Stoke Norwich etc when the old co/club are still going?await your expert answer".

Easy one to answer.Our old club is not still going(no matter what CG says).Olc club is in liquidation.
If we were the same club,why did we require a new SFA membership?.
If we were the same club,why don't we meet the criteria to play in Europe(We're not banned,as a new club we just don't qualify).
If we were the same club,why did we play in the earlier rounds of the Scottish Cup when our 2nd place in the SPL would have allowed us to join later?.
If we were the same club why did players need to TUPE over in the 1st place.Their contracts would still have been valid?.
If it was the "holding company" that was liquidated,why is its SIC number 93120 and not 70100,the certificate used when a holding company is liquidated.
If we were the same club,why are we not still in the SPL?.(We weren't relegated.the newclub was refused permission to join the SPL but was allowed to join the SFL even though we didn't meet the criteria.

We started in 1872,became a company in 1899,then Murray turned us into a PLC.We always were a stand alone business.We never were part of a business operated by a holding company.CG needs to keep the fans onside to carry out his financial schemes,whatever they are.Best way is to stir up feelings,whatever it takes to get the cash.
By the way,this time around you will be buying shares,not in the club but in a holding company.At least Greens up front about it.you'll also be paying 70p per share,Green's paid 1p!(wonder what his "investors" paid?)

Agree0 Disagree0

Players were contracted to oldco.
Oldco contracts are null and void due to admin and liquidation. Oldco still exists but cannot pay salaries or field a team.
Newco has nothing to do with oldco players.
Players are free agents.

Agree0 Disagree0

Charlotte ventures owns Albion park and offices in page 118 ...........a Craig White company bumped again boys..,

Agree0 Disagree0

"Charlotte ventures owns Albion park and offices in page 118 ...........a Craig White company bumped again boys.."

Give it up dude. Seriousy. Charlotte as in Charlotte Square in Edinburgh - where SDM lives...any idiot knows that lol...although obviously not you!

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Dec 2012 17:10:04
a wee question ... if this talk about the debt belongs to the holding company and not the (CLUB) is true then why was that not the case when whyte bought the (CLUB) for a pound ?? he didnt buy MI holdings who where the holding company he only bought the club so why was the debt attached to the club and not remain with MI holdings ?? either way the debt belonged to the club when whyte bought it and it belonged to the club when it was liquidated ... fuzzy

Believable36 Unbelievable13

Sorry mate you arent making much sense there...Murray owned the holding company which was the Rangers plc who are in administration. Now the club is run by a new holding company.

Thats if you treat the club as an asset. Most Rangers fans treat the club as something they carry around with them. Cant take it away either way.

Agree0 Disagree0

Green didnt buy the holding company he bought the club so why did the debt transfer with the club ??

Agree0 Disagree0

Rangers plc was the club... the holding company was murray international holdings ... look at the listing on company house when whyte took it over ...
The Rangers Football Club plc (the `Company') .... Wavetower acquired its interest in the Company (the `Acquisition')
from Murray MHL Limited (the `Vendor').

Agree0 Disagree0

"Holding Company" isn't really the correct term here. "Operating Company" would be more accurate. Whyte bought the club and the operating company (RFC 2012, previously Rangers Football Club Plc). Charles Green bought the club, and transferred it to his own operating company Rangers Football Club Ltd.

The actual business debt remains with RFC 2012. The outstanding football debts (i.e. transfer fees etc) could potentially have been left with RFC 2012. However, that would likely have resulted in much more opposition to Rangers remaining within the SPL/SFL set-up.

Agree0 Disagree0

I think you are getting confused between a parent company and a holding company. MIH was the parent company. The Rangers Football Club PLC was the holding company. Whyte bought the holding company for £1.

Agree0 Disagree0

Mih was the parent company ?? so its murray Internationale parent company of holding companies who own other companies now ?? geez a break ... murray changed the name from rangers club to rangers plc when he put the club on the stock exchange it doesnt matter what way you read it its the club that was liquidated green bought the stadium if he bought the club like he said he did then he would still need to have purchased whytes shares because whytes listing clearly shows he bought the club and transferred it to his own holding company wavetower wavetower then changed its name to rangers but the administrators moved into ibrox whytes holding company was not liquidated

Agree0 Disagree0

"Mih was the parent company ? so its murray Internationale parent company of holding companies who own other companies now ? geez a break ... murray changed the name from rangers club to rangers plc when he put the club on the stock exchange it doesnt matter what way you read it its the club that was liquidated green bought the stadium if he bought the club like he said he did then he would still need to have purchased whytes shares because whytes listing clearly shows he bought the club and transferred it to his own holding company wavetower wavetower then changed its name to rangers but the administrators moved into ibrox whytes holding company was not liquidated"

None of this matters. It's just down to what the fans think. They think - if it's called Rangers, looks like Rangers, plays in royal blue at Ibrox like Rangers - then it's Rangers. No amount of arguing about clubcompanywhytegreenmihplcpacific shelfalbion car parkssevco's 1-5088 is ever going to change that. Can the conspiracy nuts go and cry somewhere quietly? We've got football to watch :)

Agree0 Disagree0

If yous want to play pretend games thats up to you but you cant expect everyone else to pretend as well

Agree0 Disagree0

This argument will just keep goin until the relevant authorities come out and clear it up..... the eca recognise that rangers still have there history does that count who knows but am sure that eventually we will find out what uefa believe to be the case..... ryan

Agree0 Disagree0

12 Dec 2012 14:14:10
I'm hearing down here in Londinium that the share offer is timed for now because Imran Ahmed gave assurances to initial consortium investors that he would float before end 2012 and they would start getting returns. A delay would see penalties activated.

Believable30 Unbelievable14

Money needed for contracts signed for property - car park and edminson house - nearly 3 million needed in new year if not paid big deposits lost - this is black and white in prospectus

Agree0 Disagree0

I still don't get if we are debt free we paid £173k in interest over 3 months.

Still can't wait till float out of the way and we can get back to talking about football again.

Agree0 Disagree0

If Charles green bought rangers and all it's assets for £2 why does it show in page 118 of prospectus 2mill to acquire Albion car park and offices,were these not sold to Craig White by Murray? if not who owns them,,,,,,,,,me thinks a mr White still owns all the assets ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,come in Bomber Brown

Agree0 Disagree0

What kind of returns are investors expecting this early?

Agree0 Disagree0

Charlotte ventures Craig White company still owns Albion car park

Agree0 Disagree0

 
Change Consent