Now that we are at the end of the league season, and with respect to the job still to be done at Tannadice and McDiarmid Park, it seems like a good time for a post holocaust report.
Fig 1 Average Weekly Attendances SPL 2011-2014
Peppered around this page are three charts and a table* showing the attendance figures for the SPL in the last three seasons. A school kid could tell you that there is a positive trend in those charts and figures, but the people who run our national sport will look you straight in the eye and tell you “that can’t be right – Armageddon is coming!”
It is one of the most ridiculous and mendacious situations I have ever come across. The people who run our national game, aided and abetted by those in the MSM (sans the eye contact though) are actually trying to persuade us of how awful our game is and how unsustainable it will be in the absence of one, just one, club.
Think about that. The SFA and the SPFL trying to talk us out of supporting the game unless we all recognise the unique importance of one, just one, club. That is what has happened, no matter how they try to spin it. And despite evidence to the contrary contained in these figures, not one of them has admitted to an error, never mind the downright lies that they told to support the position they held, the one where anyone speaking of sporting integrity was mocked and ridiculed.
Whilst growing up as football supporter in the 60s, one of things I was constantly bombarded with via the medium of the tabloid newspapers was that football clubs should be grateful for the publicity afforded them via their back pages. These were probably reasonable claims, especially in the light of the relative lack of access to players and officials conceded to the hacks in those days, and the pre-eminent cultural position in which they helped to place football. Alongside that, the broadcast media, particularly Archie Macpherson’s Sportscene and Arthur Montford’s Scotsport could be relied on to talk the game up. Of course, there was something in it for the papers – sales. The more column inches devoted to the national sport, the further northward their sales, and consequently advertising revenues travelled.
Fig 2 Avg. Attendances excl Celtic & Rangers
The situation was further cemented by the fact that the press in that ante-interweb era held a monopoly over the exchange and dissemination of information. That symbiotic, win-win relationship between football and the press was as much a part of football reality as the Hampden Roar. It also endured for decades. The press would talk up the game to such an extent that folk often remarked that they hadn’t realised how much they had enjoyed a particular match until they had read Malky Munro or Hughie Taylor’s report the next day. Archie Macpherson is on record as having said the same thing about legendary commentator David Francey, “It was a much better game to listen to than to see!”
Today that symbiosis is broken. The press themselves, in print and in front of microphones consistently belittle the product, talk of crises and Armageddon, of our own version of the Eisenhower domino effect of clubs going to the wall one after another.
Aided and abetted by the two chief bureaucrats in charge of Scottish football, Stuart Regan and Neil Doncaster, who have consistently helped to hammer home the message that Scottish football is not good enough, and cannot sustain itself financially without Rangers, a club that could not itself sustain itself financially to the extent that it is being liquidated.
At a time when Scottish football was clearly in crisis, and badly in need of sponsorship which could mitigate the effects of that crisis, the press and the authorities sought to strengthen their own negotiating hand by making negative claims about the state of the game which never came to pass, and for which they have never apologised. The actual situation, which would not have been hard to predict had anyone actually bothered to analyse the business of Scottish football, is summarised quite easily by saying this;
- Since Rangers’ liquidation and subsequent absence from the top league, the average home attendance of the other clubs has INCREASED overall (See Fig 2).
- In this season, the other clubs have added 50,000 fans to home attendances compared to 2011-12 (the last year Rangers were in competition).
- In that time the league has been won (twice) by Celtic, and the other honours have been claimed by St, Mirren, Aberdeen, Celtic and (either) Dundee United or St Johnstone.
- In that time, both Dunfermline Athletic and Hearts (who both had historical financial problems) entered – and exited – administration after fan-led buyouts.
- Dundee United have cleared off their bank debt.
- Kilmarnock have restructured their bank debt, freeing the club from a precarious long-term situation.
- League reconstruction has allowed some money to trickle down to the second tier clubs in an attempt to mitigate the immediate effects of relegation and to reward ambitious clubs.
Looking at the table of attendances above, it is pretty clear that immediately upon Rangers exit, the overall figures took a dip. However there was little difference the in the figures if you leave Rangers out of the equation (Fig 3) – despite Celtic’s attendance taking a hit that year (down by around 5,000 per home match).
Taking Celtic out of the calculations, it is clear that there is a 6,000 uplift in this average (Fig 2).
It is still undeniable that less people overall are watching football (Fig 1), but the trend is upward if one leaves the Ibrox club out of the picture.
Furthermore, this statistic exposes the double edged sword that is retention of home gates. The fact that gates are not shared is predicated upon the notion that the bigger clubs do not depend on the smaller clubs for income. And since the smaller clubs are no longer recipients of big club largesse, their fortunes are not affected, at least not as much as was suggested by the Regans, Doncasters and Traynors of this parish. The “Trickle-Down” theory of Reganomics said otherwise – but clearly and demonstrably it was wrong.
The abandonment of gate sharing has made Scottish football less interdependent than it once was, but the irony is that it works both ways. There is hardly a club in the country that depends on Rangers for their own existence, and here is the news; small clubs are no longer financially dependent on the former Old Firm.
Fig 3 Excluding Celtic
The fact, that is F-A-C-T, is that Scottish Football attendances in the top division are on the increase. The absence of Rangers has made no appreciably negative difference to any other club, far less caused a catastrophe of biblical proportions.
Even if the fools who were the harbingers of our doom were simply guilty of making an honest mistake, it is clear that they are uncontaminated with the slightest notion of how the game in this country operates. The Old Firm may be dead, but the OF prism is still being peered through by Stuart Regan, Neil Doncaster and the vast majority of print journalists. The latter who failed to honour that age-old football/press symbiosis because they believed, erroneously that David Murray’s dinner table was the hand that has fed them for over a century.
The irony is that as job opportunities diminish in the print sector, so too will the fine dining and patronage. I think they call that evolution.
Two years ago, in the wake of the fans’ season ticket revolt which saw the new Rangers forced to apply for membership of the league and begin at the bottom, those same MSM hacks taunted fans about putting their money where their mouths were. The fans responded splendidly as our statistics demonstrate, but typically there has been no recognition of this either at Hampden or in the media.
And the message from those fans is this: Scottish football is not dying. Not any more. At least not as surely as it was when David Murray started to choke the life out of it in the late 80s. The supporters are returning in numbers to see a competition untainted by the outrageous liberty-taking and rule-breaking of the last couple of decades, and all but one club has emerged from the mire of the Moonbeam Millennium looking forward to a new era.
If authorities allow the new era to thrive by restoring sporting integrity to the agenda, then the numbers, like the opportunities available to more and more clubs, will grow. The question is … will they?
Admittedly, these figures, like any set of statistics, can be cherry-picked to suit almost any argument that you care to construct. The fact remains though, that whilst it would be fanciful and ridiculously over-optimistic to claim that they bear witness to a burgeoning industry, it is utterly dishonest to conclude that they represent financial Armageddon. Armageddon? Aye right!
Has no-one noticed that…
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/the-whyte-files-private-investigation-revealed-1407428
…is actually dated 30th October 2012?
Danish Pastry says:
June 9, 2014 at 10:02 am
Why on earth did Wallace feel the need to go transatlantic to deliver such an insipid message? Unless he has family there, or personal business meetings scheduled (looking for a new job?), surely he could have put that up on the club website, or even sent emails/letters to all registered supporters in the US and Canada with the same effect while saving the club money. This bit: ‘Wallace said the club is now in the “best position financially” in his time in the role ahead of next season’s assault on the top flight.’, is a bit of a laugh, surely, as, regardless of the actual amount of sales, they’ve just taken in the largest amount of cash since the last ST sales, and if they don’t have more money than they’ve had at any time in the last 6 months of hand to mouth existence, then they truly are doomed, I tell you!
neepheid at 10:02am:
“Revealed: Rangers bosses knew about Craig Whyte’s shady business dealings BEFORE Ibrox takeover”
___________________________
Every newspaper in Scotland knew about Craig Whyte’s shady business dealings long before his takeover of RFC PLC RIP.
Although Google had been 95% cleansed of revelatory material by Jack Irvine’s cronies (acting on behalf of a key player in this saga, perhaps. . . ) this had no effect on the “Cuttings” libraries used by all major newspapers, which had links to numerous articles detailing Whyte’s shifty dealings in Scotland.
The fact that they all knew this, and did nothing, speaks volumes.
Cowardice?
Complicity?
Or both?
neepheid says:
June 9, 2014 at 10:02 am
6 0 Rate This
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/the-whyte-files-private-investigation-revealed-1407428
“Revealed: Rangers bosses knew about Craig Whyte’s shady business dealings BEFORE Ibrox takeover”
What a shocker! Exclusive from the Daily Record. Better late than never, I suppose.
_____________________________________
Dateline on that is 30th October 2012. I don’t remember what was happening around then but would imagine it was written on behalf of ‘real Rangers men’.
neepheid at 10:02am:
“Revealed: Rangers bosses knew about Craig Whyte’s shady business dealings BEFORE Ibrox takeover”
this appears to be from October 2012
Allyjambo says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:11 am
1 0 Rate This
Why on earth did Wallace feel the need to go transatlantic to deliver such an insipid message? Unless he has family there, or personal business meetings scheduled (looking for a new job?) …
———
And why did Charles Green traverse the globe? It never seemed to make any sense, although one rich exile did hand him a wad of cash. Did he pick up other contributions en route?
Or maybe it’s just a perk? Nothing more than a bit of foreign travel and a suntan — and to look busy enough to be justifying his salary & bonus?
HP and maybe Campbell’sMoney
Thanks for the reply HP. Just so that I can put my understanding to bed….
I am employed by Company X. They go bust but Company Z steps in and I am happy to stay with Company Z on same conditions.
Is my contract with Company X still my contract or do I need another one with Company Z the same in all respects and only changing the name to that of my new employer?
Or is there a blanket agreement document lodged somewhere that says Company Z will honour the employee contracts entered into by Company X?
In the latter case the registration paper work would be covered, in the former would the contract with Company Z have to be lodged with SFA to keep all the ducks in a row , but leaving a paper trail that points to two different clubs
or
is there no registration requirement ( or if there is but it was it circumvented in the 5 way)to lodge the contract with Company Z then there is no paper trail to suggest SFA have two contracts in the vaults, for the same player, one for Oldco and one for Newco.
Did anyone get the same feeling as me about this link stuck in the middle of the DR report?
‘Rangers boss Ally McCoist advises former owner Craig Whyte to stay away from Ibrox’
It’s inserted there like a new paragraph and reads (if you don’t click on it) as though McCoist had warned Whyte to stay away before he bought Rangers. Maybe my over-suspicious mind at play, but if you do read the linked article, it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the main piece.
The article itself seems to be laying the blame, for not heeding the report, at the feet of the board. Now I’m sure the law will take a critical view of the board’s part in all this, criminal or merely negligent, but didn’t some of the board members claim to have tried to dissuade Murray from selling his shares to Whyte, and wasn’t Alastair Johnston publicly very critical of Whyte even before the sale? The DR, and the rest of the MSM, still seem very reluctant to put the blame for the sale entirely at Murray’s feet. The article doesn’t even say Murray sold the shares to Whyte, preferring to say Whyte bought Murray’s shares, suggesting a more passive role in the sale by Murray. It would have been a greater indictment against Murray, and more accurate, if it had said, something along the lines of, ‘after reading this damning report, Sir David Murray was still happy to sell his shares to Craig Whyte’.
I wonder if there will be a follow up article now on Murray’s role, and his preparedness to sell his ‘beloved’ Rangers to a man he was well aware of as being a charlatan (at best)?
I noticed this little snippet on the BBC concerning Commonwealth games funding. Apparently there may be a requirement to bring down some of the contingency in order to complete build-out on some venues.
I wonder how they are doing with the “snag” list down Govan way..?
Allyjambo says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:45 am
I wonder if there will be a follow up article now on Murray’s role, and his preparedness to sell his ‘beloved’ Rangers to a man he was well aware of as being a charlatan (at best)?
======================================================================
The article is old news but it reminded me that Sir David Murray, a proper entrepreneur and mega-successful businessman, was much better at discerning who might be a real Rangers man of substance than any of his appointed namby pamby directors and their private investigators. Remember the sniff test?
blu says:
June 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm
0 0 Rate This
Allyjambo says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:45 am
I wonder if there will be a follow up article now on Murray’s role, and his preparedness to sell his ‘beloved’ Rangers to a man he was well aware of as being a charlatan (at best)?
======================================================================
The article is old news but it reminded me that Sir David Murray, a proper entrepreneur and meg-successful businessman, was much better at discerning who might be a real Rangers man of substance than any of his appointed namby pamby directors and their private investigators. Remember the sniff test?
======================
A talent he inherited from his mother perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uuqry9SMjQM&feature=kp
Auldheid says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:21 am
I have No in-depth Tupe experience and am certainly not up to date.
But it seems to me if Company X goes bust then it can’t be your employer as it couldn’t deduct tax and NI from you as an employee. On a similar vein any contract of employment with Company X couldn’t have any legal standing.
So I would say that Company Z has to issue a new contract – albeit on the same terms and conditions as Company X. If it doesn’t then Company Z might have difficulty in remitting your tax and NI deductions to HMRC.
And then there would be a problem insurance-wise as to what your actual status was in the workplace because if you ain’t an employee of Company Z you wouldn’t afaik be covered for employers or public liability cover or even personal accident cover.
I’ll await the expert opinion 🙄
I remember that well Allyjambo, there were many involved in arranging the sale who were very skeptical and it was Murray alone who pushed it through, against the advice of the committee he put together to sell the club. What happened after the sale to Whyte was his fault and his fault alone. And I don’t believe for a second he was duped.
Auldheid says:
“HP and maybe Campbell’sMoney
Thanks for the reply HP. Just so that I can put my understanding to bed….
I am employed by Company X. They go bust but Company Z steps in and I am happy to stay with Company Z on same conditions.
Is my contract with Company X still my contract or do I need another one with Company Z the same in all respects and only changing the name to that of my new employer?
Or is there a blanket agreement document lodged somewhere that says Company Z will honour the employee contracts entered into by Company X?”
—————————————————————-
You don’t need to enter into a new contract with Z and you are not still employed by X. Your employment has transferred from X to Z by operation of law. You are now employed by Z on exactly the same terms as the terms you were on with X. There does not need to be a ” blanket agreement document lodged somewhere that says Company Z will honour the employee contracts” because TUPE automatically imposes that obligation upon Z.
Perhaps I`m missing something
– but it would appear Taxpayer`s aren`t allowed to see the latest BDO Report.
Published last month it seems
ecobhoy says:
June 9, 2014 at 12:34 pm
Auldheid says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:21 am
Martin C’s post from earlier provided this link, you may find it helpful. It gives the situations where TUPE applies, and this doesn’t seem to include a transfer of business from a liquidated company, but it doesn’t say so. I suppose it might be possible that the new employer can offer TUPE conditions, and try, like Green seems to have done, to use it to his advantage having misinterpreted what TUPE is actually about.
So, if there was no actual TUPE arrangement (if TUPE didn’t apply), then the players might well have signed new contracts with Sevco… And to thicken the plot; what if TUPE doesn’t apply and the RFC contracts remain with RFC, and, believing TUPE did apply, Green didn’t get new contracts signed…
http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1655
easyJambo says:
June 9, 2014 at 12:59 am
12 0 Rate This
Has Keith Jackson had sight of the latest BDO report on RFC 2012(IL)?
——————————————————————————-
It would appear its been distributed to creditors http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/revealed-accountants-lawyers-rake-2m-3665381?utm but as you correctly point out still not updated on the BDO website yet.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 9, 2014 at 12:59 am
“However, the plan to deal with the “Player Registrations as if “Rangers FC” had been relegated from the SPL to the SFL”, almost certainly means that player registration forms were not completed by Sevco and consequently will not have been submitted to the SFA.
GoosyGoosy says:
June 9, 2014 at 9:15 am
“2. Appeal to Friends of TRFC at the SPL/SFA to invent an appropriate ruling that can be backdated ?”
Campbellsmoney says:
June 9, 2014 at 9:38 am
“The transfer of assets from Oldco to Newco and the carrying on of a football business called Rangers from Ibrox was more than enough for TUPE to have applied.”
Auldheid says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:21 am
“Is my contract with Company X still my contract or do I need another one with Company Z the same in all respects and only changing the name to that of my new employer?”
——————————————
For me the old club/new club debate was never really that important. Rangers fans were always going to recognise the continuing entity of their football club and fans of many other clubs, particularly Celtic, were likely to point to a discontinuity in history. However I think that the expediency employed to ensure Rangers survival is beginning to expose unfortunate side effects.
The Telfer ‘transfer’ is the latest anomaly to surface. It is reprehensible that the national press should appear to side with one of the protagonists in the debate but we have grown accustomed to these tactics. Nevertheless the bias should be seen clearly for what it is. As HirsuitePursuit points out above, the mishmash of regulation that was concocted at short notice almost inevitably means that no ethical baseline was employed to arrive at decisions. GoosyGoosy points to the likely effect of such a policy; more policy will be dreamt up to paper over the cracks left by the previous shortcomings. The ensuing effect is that no worthy precedent will be set by any ruling and that increasing disorder will ensue with every succeeding decision.
Campbellsmoney states from a business perspective the rationale behind the OCNC debate. The concept of bankruptcy has existed for hundreds of years and has become a legitimate method whereby the indebted free themselves of insurmountable financial burdens and are given the chance to start again, albeit with various strictures and stigmas entrained. This commercial mechanism has now entered the forum of sport with the rising commercial interests in the likes of football. However there is a cultural clash here. Arbroath may defeat Bon Accord 36 to nil and the burden of that defeat may survive the memory of two lifetimes and never be extinguished. Sport does not take its reckoning in the impoverishment of a man’s purse but of his spirit. It lies within the gift of the good men of Bon Accord to avenge this disgrace or at least to redeem their reputation. However the memory of that deficit will never be rubbed out except by the passage of extreme time.
Fundamentally the flaws introduced in ensuring a seamless continuity of Rangers were a function of the disgraced David Murray’s attempt to secure his own reputation. We are all impressed by power and feel foolish when it is shown to be a fragile tissue; men’s and women’s fortunes wax and wane with the tide. Nothing is forever, not even class.For Mr. Murray to be disgraced would have poured shame on so many others that there became a critical mass against reality.
Tommy the taxi drivers recent conversation with Imran Ahmad gave the lie to all this supposed expertise. Imran reckoned that Ranger’s and Celtic’s worth was far in excess of their current value should a European league ensue or a move to England. Of course he is not wrong in this extrapolation but even the least critical thinking of Daily Record reading football supporters would likely have a better grasp of the chances and timescale of this happening than would the bold Mr. Ahmad. This power, this expertise is not insurmountable. A visit to any bookies will illustrate the fortunes of those who would predict the future.
On line blogs have done more to dissect these machinations than any group of experts that has been encountered along the way. As a community we have at our disposal all of the expertise necessary to navigate a way ahead simply by the application of critical thinking and the humility to accept contrary points of view.
So I’d say virtually without hesitation Auldheid, yes they would have new contracts of employment under the letterhead of the most recent incarnation of their employers.
tykebhoy says:
June 9, 2014 at 1:06 pm
I think most of us will be pleased to read this:
‘BDO are also carrying out a probe into the conduct of administrators Duff and Phelps, who sold the club’s assets to Charles Green for a knock-down £5.5m.
But the report stresses: “Due to the highly sensitive nature of certain aspects of these investigations, we consider that it is not appropriate to provide full details in respect of our investigations to date,”.’
When there’s absolute homogenic consensus across the board and a moral high horse media campaign directed at some johnny foreigner or another, I am immediately suspicious.
Qatar 2022 an alternative view.
http://90minutecynic.com/qatar-2022-view-qatar/
So there are some unpublished rule changes!!!!
Grant Russell @STVGrant 56m
@asmallteaser @glasgowsgreenw There is now a unified SPFL/SFA system of compensation which isn’t in the published rules yet.
neepheid says:
June 9, 2014 at 10:02 am
15 1 i
Rate Down
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/the-whyte-files-private-investigation-revealed-1407428
“Revealed: Rangers bosses knew about Craig Whyte’s shady business dealings BEFORE Ibrox takeover”
What a shocker! Exclusive from the Daily Record. Better late than never, I suppose.
————————————————————————————————————————-
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Arthur Schopenhauer
I was listening to the latest Podcast by Tommy with Imran Ahmed. One interesting point almost passed me by during the rabble of Tommy’s comments. Imran stated that after the Pinset report the auditors fees for the accounts went from £60k to £300k.
Now why would such a hike be required, if everything was straight forward?
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 9, 2014 at 1:24 pm
0 0 i
Rate This
So there are some unpublished rule changes!!!!
Grant Russell @STVGrant 56m
@asmallteaser @glasgowsgreenw There is now a unified SPFL/SFA system of compensation which isn’t in the published rules yet.
__________________________________________
This is the sort of garbage the SPFL/SFA/Sevco/TRFC can get away with, while we have a disgrace of an acquiescent blue tinted glasses wearing media that can be relied upon to carry the message.
Seems daft that compensation for a young player differs from the general comp agreed between clubs for the transfer of a player.. It could in effect put small clubs off picking up a potential future star who is just not getting a game at the source club… The not knowing the cost seems simple to rectify but as always the stand offish leaders of our game make nothing simple or straightforward.
Allyjambo
re TUPE and insolvency
The emphasis I think I am trying to make wrt to tupe is that there was no legal obligation on sevco5088 or sevco Scotland to employ anybody from the old co.
The tupe card was played to reinforce the continuous club argument and not a broken timeline to the fans. And thus the threats to those players that left.
Had CG for example bought the human resource dept from old co rangers then tupe would apply but there is no record of this. The option was there for players and staff to be left in the hands of D and P and let the administrators sort redundancies. However at some point employers changed and it may be the case the staff and players were told that new employers will honour the current contracts and thus the tupe fallacy is created. The change in employers looks seamless and reinforces the tupe myth.
On the 25th of June 2012, the Crown Office instructed the (then Strathclyde) police to conduct an investigation into the purchase of Ranger FC, and its subsequent management. I cannot recall ever hearing or reading of any progress our outcome of this investigation.
Frankly I have always been puzzled as to why HMRC decided not to go down the criminal route in the first place, as I personally felt there was some evidence to suggest a “clear intent to permanently deprive” the Revenue. Perhaps the “wee tax case” was living in the shadow of the “Big tax case” at the time.
There is a musical term often used to describe this, but I hesitate to use it!!
Sorry – got cut off there.
TUPE applies differently in administrations and in liquidations.
This was not settled law for a few years but is now accepted as the law.
Basically TUPE applies if the transfer is by an administrator but doesn’t apply if the transfer was by a liquidator.
MartinC – sorry but in your post at 1.43pm today you are just wrong. Sevco Scotland (having acquired the “football business”) was obliged under TUPE to employ the employees of Oldco. Nobody “played a TUPE card”. You don’t get to pick and choose whether or not to “play” TUPE. It applies when the law says it applies. And the law says it applies when an economic entity (a business) transfers.
There is no “myth”.
Can I be clear that none of this has anything to do with the oldclub/newclub debate.
Campbell money I bow to your superior knowledge, the law is an ass 😳
Campbellsmoney says:
June 9, 2014 at 1:50 pm
There is no “myth”.
———
The only myth seems to be the idea that TUPE did not apply.
It keeps reappearing here from time to time despite having been shown quite clearly (by Campbellsmoney and others) to be false.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 9, 2014 at 1:24 pm
‘Grant Russell @STVGrant 56m
@asmallteaser @glasgowsgreenw There is now a unified SPFL/SFA system of compensation which isn’t in the published rules yet.’
Not in the published rules yet; presumably because there hasn’t been enough time (since Stephen Thompson said he wasn’t giving TRFC the old club’s portion of the compensation) to have the amendments published 🙄
From my memory, TUPE applies if there is “A relevant transfer of an undertaking and retention of identity after the transfer ”
In deciding if there is a retention of identity a number of factors are considered including
“the type of undertaking
whether tangible assets transfer?
the value of intangible assets at the time of the transfer?
whether the majority of the undertaking’s employees are taken over by the new employer;
whether or not customers are transferred;
the degree of similarity between the activities carried on before and after the transfer
the period, if any, for which those activities were suspended”
Looking at the above it looks like a situation where TUPE will apply, however I believe this protection is to the rights of transferred employees with regard to such items as Rates of Pay, Union recognition and Continuous employment rather than to a prospective new owner such as Newco.
Campbellsmoney,
Thanks for putting us right on the TUPE situation, though I had previously thought it did apply, it was only on reading the ACAS site that doubt started to seep in, and the opportunity for some ‘what if’ was just too good to miss out on.
Some info posted previously by easyJambo re compensation payments for youth development.
(To add- ej’s figures relate only to the Youth Development contribution. The compensation figure is arrived at by a much more complex route.)
Link, Section F pp42-49
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthescottishprofessionalfootballleagueasat1june2014_1401696717.pdf
MartinC
Why is the law an ass?
TUPE is there to protect employees. Why is it an ass?
I smell another paid for report / commission / rule change coming up to crush this nasty rumour that keeps resurfacing, it just won’t go away will it? Rangers…….. are deid. Why don’t the powers that be, be done with it and just change the laws that render them deid? Oh here that widnae work either cos they are already gone. Oh well.
Campbellsmoney 12. 58
I knew you were the guy to bring in.
That answers my question and puts the matter to bed in terms of that bit of evidence against the same club debate.
It was the continuing status of the contract I was after and it seems another one is not necessary. So only one registration needing lodged.
Ally Jambo 1.15
I hope BDO are asking why they never supplied the DOS ebt info to Harper MacLeod.
Did they not know it existed or did they know but keep it hidden on advice from a Rangers current employee or an ex employee. One who was on SFA licencing committee and one who is now SFA President?
If probity of D&P is under investigation BDO could do worse than talk to Harper MacLeod.
Maybe BDO should be asked if their remit on D&P covers the impact of their behaviour on other SPL clubs.
@Pmacgiollabhain
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228801099/General-Meeting-on-13-Jan-14 From the latest version of Charlotte on twitter @ 4.45 today
andygraham.66 says:
June 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228801099/General-Meeting-on-13-Jan-14 From the latest version of Charlotte on twitter @ 4.45 today
Could someone translate this lawyer speak please for us laymen?
campbells money, I will rephrase that, I am an ass 😳
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm
3 0 Rate This
andygraham.66 says:
June 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228801099/General-Meeting-on-13-Jan-14 From the latest version of Charlotte on twitter @ 4.45 today
Could someone translate this lawyer speak please for us laymen?
easy –
“Give dead club whatever they ask for”
http://www.spreaker.com/user/glasgow-radio-online/live-afternoon-show-4-6-14
Forgot to post the link to Tommy’s chat with Imran.
At around 62.50 mins Imran talks about the Pinset report. “we spent £600k on Pinset investigation and because we spent £600k on Pinset report, the auditors got a bit scared and their deal went from £60k to £300k”
Scared of what?
June 9, 2014 at 5:21 pm
4 0 Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 9, 2014 at 4:54 pm
3 0 Rate This
andygraham.66 says:
June 9, 2014 at 4:50 pm
0 0 Rate This
http://www.scribd.com/doc/228801099/General-Meeting-on-13-Jan-14 From the latest version of Charlotte on twitter @ 4.45 today
Could someone translate this lawyer speak please for us laymen?
easy –
“Give dead club whatever they ask for”
———————————————————————————
What deid club? When did this happen? Was it a Scottish club?
Is someone having me on? Even Elvis was oblivious to this deid club when I was putting sauce on his fish & chips last night.
Re the Charlie Telfer compensation issue.
The Dundee Courier ran a short piece today reporting that DUFC had denied giving any reason in writing to Rangers regarding their view as to the compensation level.
They also stated that no further comment on the subject would be forthcoming from them on the subject.
(I’m afraid it’s not made the Courier website yet, so you’ll just have to take my word on this 🙂 )
It could be that a conversation took place and Uniited are being a little disingenuous, but I doubt it.
More likely the Sunday Post journalist picked up on internet/Twitter rumours that have been circulating for some weeks now and decided that there’s nothing like a headline calculated to enrage some bears to shift copy or get website hits.
This of course does not rule out United having taken the view that only 2 years compensation due, but I think supposition rather than fact lies at the heart of the original SP article.
Re Charlottes latest tweet.
My interpretation of the amendments to the current regulations are that even though a club, company or whatever ( In this case Rangers) are no longer entitled to be paid for a players development, The Board have now been given the authority to order that full payment should be made.
Someone drafting these amendments obviously has a crystal ball, or is privy to some good inside information.
You can take it as a racing certainty that Dundee United will be ordered by The Board to pay the full whack.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
June 9, 2014 at 6:33 pm
4 0 Rate This
http://www.spreaker.com/user/glasgow-radio-online/live-afternoon-show-4-6-14
Forgot to post the link to Tommy’s chat with Imran.
At around 62.50 mins Imran talks about the Pinset report. “we spent £600k on Pinset investigation and because we spent £600k on Pinset report, the auditors got a bit scared and their deal went from £60k to £300k”
Scared of what?
————-
That was another little nugget from Tommy’s chaotic interview. Perhaps Imran has seen the latest BDO report and is getting his story straight?
Anyway, if it went from £60,000 to £300,000 it must have been a work of art.
When Charles Green’s consortium paid £5.5M for the assets of a soon to be liquidated company the figure included £2.75M for players contracts and registrations. Given the number of players involved the sum looks to be quite a bit smaller than one would expect if circumstances applied where a player or players transferred from one team to another.
In ordinary circumstances when a player moves from one team to another a three way agreement is reached. The selling club is happy to terminate a contract for a suitable fee. The buying club is happy to pay the fee, and the player is happy with his new terms and conditions and signs a new contract with his new employer.
If a player has reached the end of his contract with his current team then naturally he is free to negotiate terms with a prospective employer and sign a contract with them.
Special circumstances apply when a young player for whom a club might have invested significant sums of money in development over a considerable period of time becomes available to other clubs. It seems variable from one football governing body to another in detail and value but in Scotland at least there is agreement in principal of compensation being paid.
A good idea if you ask me.
Which brings me back to the £2.75M. If D&P had done their homework (I have no reason to doubt that they did) then the value of the contracts being bought would have included any compensation due to the soon to be liquidated company. This after all would have met the requirement for achieving the best possible outcome for the creditors.
For all his bluster at the time Charles Green must have known that the £2.75M spent was such a relatively small amount for the very obvious reason that he had bought half a contract in the case of each player concerned (that’s not exactly a legal term I just made it up).
Whilst the Tupe regulations are there to preserve the rights of workers in a transfer of contract from one employer to another they also include the right to simply do walking away with no personal damage accrued.
My ‘half a contract’ notion naturally has the quality of being entirely mad, but any close inspection of Charles Green’s consortiums purchase of Ranger’s assets defies more reasoned explanation.
The £2.75M could only ever have covered any development compensation due and bought the opportunity to replicate contracts with players, who may or may not have ultimately made the choice to Tupe over.
Thanks Ray Gosling for the words of encouragement fiver e/w on portugal, doubled my my bet to tenner e/w, if a winner, part of proceeds to TSFM funds. Lets hope I start a trend 🙂
easyJambo says:
June 8, 2014 at 10:53 pm
It seems that the NARSA meeting with Graham Wallace was a stormy affair
http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/06/09/original/ade9y3u2.jpg
I see “tarrier” has TUPEd over to North America with them.
Making friends wherever they go!
Do we now have to await a raft of unforseen eventualities arising from the despicable 5WA to allow the SFA/SPFL to write and implement new rules on the hoof for the betterment of the game? This has now descended into something way beyond farcical. It is downright disgraceful.
Martin says:
June 9, 2014 at 7:24 pm
0 0 Rate This
If CG had got his way, he would have bought the assets, players registrations, sold a couple of players and been in profit. He would have got the lot for nothing. A clever guy that CG.
Nowoldandgrumpy,
I don’t think he worried too much about player registrations – apparently if you get that wrong and nobody notices, you’re good to go. 😀
Now do not laugh too much
Here is the State Aid guy on his radio broadcast.
Was he sniffing helium.
It is the top one.
http://mixlr.com/rangerschat/showreel/
This is comedy gold, fearless Rangers land investigator uses voice distorter on internet radio show to conceal identity
http://mixlr.com/rangerschat/showreel/
Joeninho says:
June 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm
======================
Pots and kettles spring to mind when reading that statement. Starts off by demanding dignity and respect for the guests, then labels the dissenters as behaving like ‘tarriers’. 🙄
James Doleman,
It seems Daffy Duck is the Rangers land bear, I have to say I never expected Warner Bros to be active in this! 🙄
Is the host Craig Brown? Just joking.
The Bears Land Expert sounds like wee Becky the young telephone prankster from Dublin.
James Doleman says:
June 9, 2014 at 7:56 pm
The Pinky & Perky voice sums it up really, a joke 🙂
skipped through it. you need to be made of stronger stuff than me to listen to it all.
wonderfully shameless exchange between the great minds towards the end on the subject of raising money against overvalued property.
they agreed that was a very, very bad thing to do.
well, they should know………………
Just had a go at reading that SPFL resolution from January. I haven’t a clue what it means.
What I can say is that “a broadly equivalent Club” cannot be the same “Club”.
Campbellsmoney says:
June 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm
4 0 Rate This
Just had a go at reading that SPFL resolution from January. I haven’t a clue what it means.
What I can say is that “a broadly equivalent Club” cannot be the same “Club”.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Heres another view
Forget about piecemeal revelations of corruption in scottish football
Think about the role of Bampots in unearthing the truth
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Theres a much more interesting conspiracy to flush out
And its this
Its now becoming evident that some foresight has gone into protecting the invented legacy of TRFC
And it aint pretty reading
So
Who or what sub group of Club representatives at the SFA/SPL sat down to brainstorm the implications on existing rules of the OC NC nonsense that they committed themselves to in haste in 2012?
And
Was Lawell involved?
Campbellsmoney says:
June 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm
15 0 Rate This
Auldheid says:
“HP and maybe Campbell’sMoney
Thanks for the reply HP. Just so that I can put my understanding to bed….
I am employed by Company X. They go bust but Company Z steps in and I am happy to stay with Company Z on same conditions.
Is my contract with Company X still my contract or do I need another one with Company Z the same in all respects and only changing the name to that of my new employer?
Or is there a blanket agreement document lodged somewhere that says Company Z will honour the employee contracts entered into by Company X?”
—————————————————————-
You don’t need to enter into a new contract with Z and you are not still employed by X. Your employment has transferred from X to Z by operation of law. You are now employed by Z on exactly the same terms as the terms you were on with X. There does not need to be a ” blanket agreement document lodged somewhere that says Company Z will honour the employee contracts” because TUPE automatically imposes that obligation upon Z.
======================================
The only thing I will add is that the old employer has a duty to consult with the employees and in practice will (usually) produce paperwork that proves that the employee has been consulted & has accepted the transfer.
A “contract of employment” is more than a single document and includes anything that contributes to the terms & conditions that apply to your employment. I would consider any TUPE consultation paperwork to be an addendum to the existing employment contract – if only because it specifies who is taking on the liability to pay your wages.
Campbellsmoney says:
June 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm
……..
As taken from ACAS…
TUPE means the “Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
Regulations” They apply to organisations of all sizes and protect employees’
rights when the business they work for transfers to a new employer.
The TUPE Regulations apply when a business is sold, activities are
outsourced, or brought back in-house.
…..
The business was not sold or bought… the assets were…otherwise there is a small matter of approx 40 million pounds worth of creditors debts and an outstanding HMRC bill to settle..that would have had to be part of any business purchase…therefore TUPE would not apply as the business was not purchased or outsourced and anyone wishing to work for Charlie’s new Company would be working to a new contract with a new Company.
Having re-read the SPFL Minutes and new rule F36, I’m doubtful if it has any significant bearing on TRFC or any other specific club, albeit it seems to be written in part to cater for clubs in various states of solvency or status.
The interpretation I take from it, is that the SFA operates a scheme where it provides or subsidises the training and development costs of a number of youth players.
The first half of the rule effectively says that no development contribution will be payable to clubs where the SFA’s scheme is deemed equivalent to that provided by a club.
I’m less clear on the second half of the rule, but it does appear to cater for clubs in various state of solvency or eligibility for the scheme.
I suspect that the rule has been adopted following the implementation of the half a dozen or so performance schools, where players receive additional coaching at their school, rather than from their registered clubs. The schools’ coaching will almost certainly be funded by the SFA, thus their clubs should not benefit from the payment of a full development contribution, while they attend these performance schools.
Don’t be surprised if the SFA make up the difference in payment for Mr. Telfer…
Paulmac2
Dont look at ACAS explanatory documents. Go and read the TUPE regulations themselves.
Anyway if I buy a business (as opposed to the assets) I do not thereby become liable for prior debts.
So your post is doubly erroneous. Sorry don’t mean to be so blunt but I have posted loads of times on this already.
TUPE can apply even if what is acquired is described as “assets” rather than “business”. Its a matter of degree more than anything else.
Anyone who tried to argue that the TRFC acquisition was not a TUPE transfer would be laughed out of court.
To try and put an end to this can I ask any other lawyers out there to confirm that what I say is correct.
This non-TUPE suggestion is preposterous.
Missed the world cup sweep, would have went with Argentina but I fear they might be dispersed to different positions after that banner, so its the land of the four sprung dug technique (who cracked that one 😆 ? ) for me.
James Doleman says:
June 9, 2014 at 7:56 pm
15
0
Rate This
This is comedy gold, fearless Rangers land investigator uses voice distorter on internet radio show to conceal identity
http://mixlr.com/rangerschat/showreel/
_______________________________________________________
That land-bear experts cover is well and truly blown.
It is Steve Coogan on Helium.
And I can prove it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6UhXivPyw4
Galling fiver says: at 11:13 pm
Missed the world cup sweep, would have went with Argentina but I fear they might be dispersed to different positions after that banner, so it’s the land of the four sprung dug technique (who cracked that one 😀 ) for me.
_
Still a wee bit of time to enter CMs Share offer 😉
Will put up a final list tomorrow pm
& btw Jennifer Lopez has pulled out of the Opening Ceremony Thursday @ 7 [I`m told]
(Who`s Ms Lopez?)
Deutschland then for Galling Fiver
Campbellsmoney says:
June 9, 2014 at 11:04 pm
——————-
I’m not a lawyer, but from experience of buying business’ , some in distress some in good shape, I know your analysis is correct.
Let me try and put a logical perspective on this, rather than a legal one.
Tupe in my experience requires the acquiring company to honour employment contracts in full. It also forces the employer to recognise the length of service of the employee.
For example an employee who has 35 years uninterrupted service and Tupe’s over to the acquiring company, which in itself may only have been in business for say 10 years , will still be recognised as having 35 years service regardless of whether the acquiring business has been around for much less period of time. You can and often do then have the anomaly of the founders of a business, by definition there on day 1 , having much less length of service than other employees who might have just walked in the door for the first time 24 hours previously.
The second logical argument is the obvious financial one. Why on earth would Charles Green have taken a single unnecessary thin dime out of his and his investors pockets by agreeing to pay Neil Alexander £12 k a week unless forced to do so by a Tupe situation. Ditto for any other grossly overpaid player , manager or administrator.
Duff & Phelps could have paid off all of the high earners with no resale value . When that didn’t happen , Green had to take them at their pre liquidation contract.
The thing about Tupe, is that its a one way deal to protect employees. They are under absolutely no obligation to transfer over, but the new employer has no such choice .
https://twitter.com/Daily_Record/status/476134430956740609