The following post comes about as a result of the research and work put in by Auldheid.
He has drafted the submission to FIFA detailed below after closely looking at their rules, and taking on board the points contained in the Glasnost “Golden Rule” blog. TSFM has attached the blog’s name to the report since the overwhelming – but not unanimous – view of our readership is that the SFA and the SPL have again gotten themselves into an almighty and embarrassingly amateur fankle over this issue.
We believe that tens of thousands of football fans will be lost to the game if the outcome of the LNS enquiry is not perceived to be commensurate with the scope and extent of the rule breaking that LNS found had taken place. In view of this, we believe that we have to do what we can to explore all possibilities for justice for those who love the game so much and yet are utterly disillusioned by recent events.
LNS is not being questioned here. He has found that RFC were guilty as charged by the SPL.
What is being questioned is the SFA’s crucial – and seemingly conflicted – role in the LNS enquiry, as is the effectiveness of LNS’s recommended sanction as either a deterrent or an upholder of sporting integrity.
It came to our notice last week that FIFA have created a web site at
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
that tells us that FIFA have implemented a regulatory framework which is intended to ensure that all statutory rules, rules of conduct and internal guidelines of FIFA are respected and complied with.
In support of that regulatory framework FIFA have set up the above site as a reporting mechanism by means of which inappropriate behaviour and infringements of the pertinent regulations may be reported.
FIFA say that their jurisdiction encompasses misconduct that (1) relates to match manipulation; (2) occurs in or affects more than one confederation, so that it cannot adequately be addressed by a single confederation; or (3) would ordinarily be addressed by a confederation or association, but, under the particular facts at issue, has not been or is unlikely to be dealt with appropriately at that level.
Discussions arising from the previous blog on TSFM, “Gilt Edged Justice”, which was published after Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) ruled on the registration of Rangers players who had contractual side letters that were not disclosed to the SFA as part of their registration, suggest that there may be possible unfortunate consequences for football arising from the evidence presented by the SFA to the LNS enquiry that informed its findings on registration and consequent eligibility. There is also a question of the propriety of the SFA providing evidence on an issue which could have had a negative impact on them had it been found that they had failed to carrying out their registration duties with due rigour over a period of ten years when the existence of EBTs was known to officials within the SFA.
On the basis that the LNS findings require that registration rules be clarified by FIFA and rewritten globally if necessary to remove any ambiguity and under clause 3 above, this appears to be an issue that the FIFA should examine and that the SFA cannot address.
The following report has therefore been submitted by TSFM on behalf of its readers to FIFA drawing on the content and debate following the “Gilt Edged Justice” blog in respect of the possible footballing consequences of the LNS enquiry.
The hope is that by speaking for so many supporters, FIFA will give the TSFM submission some weight, but individuals are free of course to make their own points in their own way. We await acknowledgement of the submission.
The report Submitted to FIFA is as follows;
This report was prepared on behalf of the 10,000-strong readership of The Scottish Football Monitor at http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/
It is our belief that FIFA general rules of conduct were breached by the SFA and their employees in both creating and then advising The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) enquiry into the non disclosure of full payment information to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) by Rangers F.C during a period of player registration over 10 years from 2000.We believe that although the issue has been addressed by the SFA the particular facts at issue suggest that it has not been dealt with appropriately and we therefore ask FIFA to investigate. The facts at issue are that the process and advice given failed to uphold sporting integrity, and that a conflict of interest was at play.
We believe the advice provided and the enquiry set up, where SFA both advised and is the appellant body, breaches not only the integrity the registration rules were intended to uphold, but also totally undermines the integrity of the SFA in breach of General Conduct rules 1, 2 and 4. (See below.)
1. Firstly we believe that the advice supplied to LNS that an incorrectly registered player was eligible to play as long as the registration was accepted by the SFA however unwittingly, undermines the intent of the SPL/SFA rules on player registration and so undermines the integrity of football in three ways.
• It incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
• A club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivized to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
• And most importantly, it incentivises fraud. By deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). Then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
2. Secondly we believe the process followed was inappropriate due to a Conflict of Interest. Had the LNS enquiry not ruled on the basis of advice supplied by The SFA, they and those persons advising the LNS enquiry, could have been subjected to censure and the SFA to potential compensation claims had LNS found that the players were indeed ineligible to play and results then been annulled as was SFA practice when an ineligible player played.
3. Finally we contend that a law should not be applied according to its literal meaning if to do so would lead to an absurdity or a manifest injustice or in this case loss of football integrity.
See http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/4. We therefore ask FIFA to investigate both the process used and advice given to Lord Nimmo Smith to satisfy themselves that FIFA’s intentions with regard to upholding the integrity of football under FIFA rules have not been seriously damaged by the LNS findings and also to reassure Scottish football supporters that the integrity of our game has not been sacrificed by the very authority in whose care it has been placed to promote the short term cause of commercialism to the games long term detriment.
General Rules of Conduct (These are taken from the FIFA web site itself and can be found as part of completing the submission process)
1. Persons bound by this Code are expected to be aware of the importance of their duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities.
2. Persons bound by this Code are obliged to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to them.
3. N/A
4. Persons bound by this Code may not abuse their position in any way, especially to take advantage of their position for private aims or gains.
eddie rice says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 22:29
0 0 Rate This
bobferris70 saays
Can you name the manager from a Glasgow club to be charged and convicted of Breach of the Peace at a St Johnston game?
You got it in one, Wattie Smith.
=============
Yes, but you don’t seem to understand the fundamentals here- as a member of the “Rangers family”, Walter has dignity, which together with brown brogues and a cardigan, put him in a totally different bracket from the likes of Neil Lennon.
The saddest thing is that this is really how a large number of people (peepil?) in Scotland think- using the word think in its very loosest sense, of course. Remember the furore over Ally wearing a tracksuit? Lacking in dignity, the bears were outraged. This from the fans of a club that welches on its debts. What is in the heads of these peepil? I truly lose hope for Scotland sometimes.
bill1903 says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 23:15
0 0 Rate This
angus1983 says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 22:32
——
I think everyone should be welcome here and their views should be valued.
I have never referred to any football fan as a diddy fan or their team as a diddy team, to me they’re football fans who follow football for probably various reasons I do.
If an individual or team has done wrong, then they should be treated without fear or favour no matter what team they manage or play for.
I just don’t like the airbrushing of history and comparing the treatment received by a NL as (pelters) and similar to Souness or Butcher, Adams, Shiels or any other manager.
No one in the history of Scottish football has had to endure what NL has and to deny that fact is just wrong and in my eyes condoning the behaviour towards him as acceptable.
smartbhoy says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 22:59
I would bet that there is not one person on this board who believes Lennon deserves the death threats the physical assaults etc etc. They may not care very much for Neil but no one except for a deluded nutter would wish any ill on the man and frankly TSFM is far removed from the name calling ‘punch and judy’ of some football discussion groups that may go down that line.
However there are plenty football fans on here who would just like to see the rules be applied without fear or favour.
If that means Lennon gets hauled up before the beak for being out of order, which he can be from time to time, then so be it.
There may be times when ‘whataboutery’ comes into play but in my opinion the game as a whole is far to soft on a players, managers, club officials and referees who do themselves and the game no favours by their antics. It is not just in Scotland but seems to be a ‘football thing’.
Just because Lennon has had to endure some despicable acts does not absolve him from having to face enquiry and, if required, punishment for any rules broken or unacceptable behaviour.
Possible lead on the Charlotte 18 cover up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/03/offshore-secrets-offshore-tax-haven
You know what to do Agents Cosgrove & Thomson
“Fran Sandaza has been receiving legal advice from PFA Scotland and it is understood he will appeal his sacking by the Zombies.
But if the appeal fails, he has been told he’s likely to win a case for unfair dismissal”.
=================================================================
That’s one way of reducing the Tribute Act’s wage bill!
briggsbhoy says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 21:33
I feel sorry for Mr Sandaza what was seen as a joke by the individual who made the prank call has cost a man his livelihood. Whether Sevco are correct or not in their actions I know for a fact if I was in Sandaza’s shoes I’d be seriously pissed not just with Sevco but the prank caller.
===============================
Mr Sandaza is responsible for his own actions. If he thought this was him being tapped up, resulting in him doubling his salary then he didn’t do much to reject the advances. In fact he invited further details, so long as his current employer was kept in the dark.
Mr Sandaza is in the situation he is in because of how he reacted to the call, whether it was genuine or not really isn’t the point. His reaction to it is.
chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 00:24
briggsbhoy says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 21:33
I feel sorry for Mr Sandaza what was seen as a joke by the individual who made the prank call has cost a man his livelihood. Whether Sevco are correct or not in their actions I know for a fact if I was in Sandaza’s shoes I’d be seriously pissed not just with Sevco but the prank caller.
===============================
Mr Sandaza is responsible for his own actions. If he thought this was him being tapped up, resulting in him doubling his salary then he didn’t do much to reject the advances. In fact he invited further details, so long as his current employer was kept in the dark.
Mr Sandaza is in the situation he is in because of how he reacted to the call, whether it was genuine or not really isn’t the point. His reaction to it is.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wow – so it’s all his fault for being tricked by a hoaxer. I think whether it was a genuine call or not is exactly the point. How could he be tapped up when the caller wasn’t actually in a position to offer him anything?
STF.
We had a wee chuckle about Madden being supposedly demoted to an Arbroath game following his Paisley nightmare performance.
However I see that he is actually one of Willie Collum’s assistants behind the goal in Thursday’s Europa tie between Fenerbace and Lazio.
Any link between those guys getting nominated by SFA for these gigs? Asst. refs are Martin Cryans (who led the refs strike against NFL and Willie Conquer, who has had a few dubious flag decisions in his time)……. wee flying kicks……hahahahaha
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 00:31
Wow – so it’s all his fault for being tricked by a hoaxer. I think whether it was a genuine call or not is exactly the point. How could he be tapped up when the caller wasn’t actually in a position to offer him anything?
============================
I agree with you. He is not being sacked for being tapped up, he can’t be because a taxi driver from Glasgow can’t actually tap him up. It makes no sense.
He is being sacked because he was open to the offer and willing to take it further, so long as Rangers didn’t know about it.
That is where the club claim he breached his contract. Again I agree it is nonsense, but that is what they are saying.
Okay guys. The Lennon stuff is yet another attempt to turn this into FF v KDS. Leave it out.
Any further stuff will be removed.
Any problems with that DO NOT post on the blog. Send a private mail.
chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 00:24 you got a TD
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 00:31 you get a TU
The fact of the matter is football players will be tapped up continuously be that directly or indirectly by Football Managers, players and Agents. I doubt there is hardly a player in the professional game who hasn’t at some point been asked “would you go to X club if asked and what would it take for you to leave” The difference here is that Mr Sandaza is likely the only victim of a hoax Agent Call regarding his willingness to move on and the details of that conversation published. To judge the strength of this statement I wonder if Tommy called any other players and what was the response from them. If Tommy called 10 other players and Mr S was the only one to engage in the conversation then maybe he has been foolish.
I’m sure many of us have sat at dinner tables or in bars where business partners have asked “what it would take you to move” and “if a job came up would you be interested” or “did you know x is leaving and his post will be coming up”. Employment agencies phone me periodically and with all of these guys I either get a little deeper into the conversation, or sometimes not, it would depend on the hook or carrot that is dangled. What I certainly do not expect is that person to then blab to the World that this conversation took place and I certainly would not inform my current employer.
I wonder how many players are instructed on how to conduct themselves on such approaches once they have signed a contract, very few I expect. With a number of employers I have worked with over the years we were constantly trained on money laundering, H&S, fraud and anti competitive practices.
On the subject of anti competitive practices and cartels is that ever likely to happen in Scottish Football….nah how could I think that
Sorry BP. I hadn’t refreshed before posting. Totally agree. Feel free etc.
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 00:23
9 2 Rate This
Possible lead on the Charlotte 18 cover up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/03/offshore-secrets-offshore-tax-haven
You know what to do Agents Cosgrove & Thomson
—————–
Well spotted bogs. That’s some amount of emails. A sort of financial wikileaks! Now if only they had a search function connected to this article:
http://www.icij.org/offshore
Danish/bogs:
Possibly Mark Daly’s source?. Anyone sent them any tidbits yet? Makes Craigie look small beer.
Post #15786 [Tweet]
Member Avatar
sinister internet bampot
[* * * * * * * * * * * ]
Group:Snr. MemberFavourite all-time playerbobby murdoch
Auldyin4 Apr 2013, 12:08 AM
remy mcswain3 Apr 2013, 03:19 PM
Auldyin3 Apr 2013, 02:36 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deepall
I saw the costs reported at c£2m. Cenkos would have deducted these and sent “rest” on. If they really raised £22m in cash, they were desperate for it hence the rush to get it through before Christmas.
On your other point, hopw can a newco supply full year audited accounts? They’ll get a pass on their 6 month numbers due to cash in bank.The answer is they cannot and what the SFA will use instead to satisfy themselves The Rangers have enough liquidity to see them through to end of next season is imo a key issue.
That the SFA have introduced a new “exceptional dispensation” clause that allow clubs to apply NOT to supply historical info should be sending alarm bells ringing.
Here is the extra stuff at foot of 8.12 from last year and whilst I highlight the dispensation clause the rules at 8.11 and 8.12 ask other questions.
” In submitting this information, the club must give consideration to a relevant reporting perimeter i.e. the entity or combination of entities in respect of which financial information has to be provided. In particular the financial information must include all remuneration paid to any employees including players and any costs/proceeds of acquiring or selling a player.
The reporting perimeter shall also include any entities included in the legal group structure which generate revenues or perform services for the club in respect of ticketing; sponsorship and advertising; broadcasting; merchandising and hospitality; club operations; financing; use of stadium and youth operations.
In practical terms group accounts are not required. However financial information in respect of all individual entities within the above reporting perimeter must be provided.
Exceptional dispensation may be granted by the Licensing Committee in certain cases where a club is unable to provide historical financial information . Clubs will be required to submit written reasons for such an exceptional request. Not wishing to disclose the information will not be considered a valid application for an exceptional request however.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/Part2:National/Part2Sect8_Legal,Admin,FinanceandCodesofPractice%20Criteria.pdf Henceforth known as the Sevco get out clause :rolleyes:
“In practical terms group accounts are not required. However financial information in respect of all individual entities within the above reporting perimeter must be provided” – if that had been the case with Murray's Group, which was in effect the majority shareholder of OldGers and apparently sponsor of much of its debt, alarm bells would have been ringing well before they went bust.
All these chances to fix things that "are going whooshing bye" (to paraphrase Douglas Adams), I despair I really do.
Dunno about you briggsbhoy, but my contract doesn’t have a clause in it that explicitly states that talking to other firms outside of given “windows” of opportunity is a breach of contract, indeed I also don’t have an agent to deal with this type of thing, who I probably would have said to send the details. I think the damning thing was the “don’t tell the club” bit. That shows he was knowingly trying to mislead his employer. If I was his boss, I’d be p1ssed.
The other difference in Sandaza’s case is the lack of perceived value (or low perceived value/cost trade-off) – if that was a player they thought they could punt for a profit, he’d get a fine (prob the max they could get away with given their finances!) and they’d try to move him next transfer window. Div3 is won, and obviously they don’t think they’ll even make his wages back if they put him up for sale, so it’s cheerio Fran, don’t let the door hit you on the way out…
Re Guardian, BVI and Charlotte 18 have already emailed Guardian journalist.
jockybhoy says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 09:14
The bottom line is that he should politely have said “I’m sorry but i cannot discuss this” and ended the call there and then. Alternatively he could have told the caller that if they were interested in him they must approach his curent employer in the first instance.
Whatever anyone thinks of the rights and wrongs of what Rangers are doing, and whether their action in dismissing him is wrong, Mr Sandaza is where he is because of his own actions.
On a side issue, I think he is going because of cost cutting, however I think that the perceived reaction of the fans is the other major factor. He is already considered a waste of space by them, so the club not only save a wage but are also lauded for getting rid of someone who the fans already think is useless anyway. It’s a win / win for them. An employment tribunal may feel differently.
chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 09:25
I think you are right- this is all about money, and money in the immediate short term at that, because in due course they will end up having to at least pay up his contract, plus a fortune in legal fees if they fight this at an employment tribunal. All Green cares about right now is getting to the day when the season ticket renewal cash starts rolling in.
Clearly the IPO cash is running out quicker than I thought. Who is next for the old heave-ho? I’m sure Green would just love it to be Ally, since he could get a manager twice as good for a quarter the money. If I was Ally I would be investing in one of those stab vests, with heavily reinforced back section. In terms of management style, this looks more and more like an action replay of Green’s time at Sheffield.
neepheid says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 09:49
I am told the next manager will be Stuart McCall. I have no idea what wage he is currently recveiving, however I don’t think it will be enormous. I believe he has recently signed a new contract at Motherwell, so presumably there would have to be some sort of compensation.
I think that could be sold to the Rangers fans, as a replacement for Alistair McCoist. Relatively young manager, Rangers background, has managed in Scotland, can work within a budget. I can see it being sold to him as starting his own dynasty. He seems a very sensible choice if it turns out to be true.
Is Neil Alexander in breach of contract?
Sandaza was sacked for what he thought was a private conversation….Neil Alexander makes a public criticism of Rangers…
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 10:33
Is Neil Alexander in breach of contract?
Sandaza was sacked for what he thought was a private conversation….Neil Alexander makes a public criticism of Rangers…
==========================================================================
Doesn’t Alexander’s contract run out at the end of the season?
If so there’s no need for any action against the player.
I found Alexander’s pleas for a new contract rather strange.
It should be obvious to him that a decision has been made, and they no longer want or require his services.
To me Alexander comes across as the archytypal greedy footballer. He was one of those players who made a great play about staying and helping Rangers get back up whilst at the same time keeping quite about the fact that he was getting over £500k pa to do so. He stayed because no other team would give him a contract anywhere near this. He is then offered another contract for a similar salary but only for one year, decides to hold out for a longer term, but is then told by the club that the offer is withdrawn (presumably as they had another keeper lined up). Well, I’m sorry, but that’s the chance you take when you are negotiating. The other party can change their offer at any time, snooze you lose etc. To now come out and complain of being treated shabbily is a bit rich for me.
chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 09:25
His actions were foolish no doubt especially if he has an Agent. Has he got a case for unfair dismissal? I think so.
Jockybhoy as employer you may be pissed with me but could you do what Sevco have done?
Is this a cost saving exercise? possibly but why not try and punt him. It’s odd Jockbhoy that someone they thought was of value when he played with St Johnstone is now worth nothing to them.
Just out of interest
http://www.darlingtonsemploymentsolicitors.co.uk/employer/dismissals/gross-misconduct/
Gross misconduct is an action or course of conduct performed by an employee that is deemed so reprehensible that summary dismissal is justified. Such conduct can often make a continuing relationship between employee and employer impossible and in such circumstances notice is not necessary, nor pay in lieu of notice.
Summary dismissal is not instant dismissal
A common mistake by employers is to believe that if the employee behaves so badly that the facts are unarguable, such as being caught fighting or in the act of theft, that dismissal can take place literally on the spot. Emotions can run very high but a cool head is needed – the employee is still entitled to have procedure followed if they have been employed for more than a year, so dismissal must wait – the correct thing to do is to suspend the employee. Failure to follow procedure, however reprehensible the employee’s behaviour, is likely to constitute unfair dismissal. The employee should also be given the right to appeal ant dismissal, with appropriate process followed.
The types of conduct which amount to gross misconduct
There are no definitive national guidelines outlining the line which cannot be crossed. What amounts to gross misconduct is a question which will be answered differently by different employers.
An employment contract should outline the sorts of behaviour which will not be tolerated at work. This will of course depend on the employer themselves but also the nature of the work and the type of workplace. The test, in terms of the actions, is whether the employer is acting within a “range of reasonable responses”. In common sense terms, a good way to think of the behaviour is, does it go to the very heart of the employment relationship, so as to irrevocably destroy any trust and confidence on the employer’s part. Consistency of approach and compliance with the latest ACAS disciplinary guidelines are also important. However most employers would agree that the following things are likely to amount to gross misconduct:
Intoxication at work
Violence
Threatening behaviour
Theft
Breaches of trust
Sexual harassment or serious issues of discrimination (potentially)
Commission of crime.
The decision to dismiss
If an employer takes the decision to instantly dismiss an employee for gross misconduct they must stand by that decision and be able to justify it. Because there is no concrete definition of gross misconduct it is the decision of the employer to find it has occurred but that decision is reviewable by the Employment Tribunal. If an employee feels they have been wronged by the decision to dismiss they may take their employer to tribunal and claim damages if the decision was wrong. At tribunal the employer will have to justify that the instant dismissal was:
Fair – this is the procedural issue and requires analysis of the conduct alleged. It should be shown that the incident was investigated and satisfactory proof was found of the misconduct and for the employee to be advised and have an opportunity to contest any allegations in a formal disciplinary process. It is favourable to an employer if the type of conduct was set out in an employment contract or training book, as gross misconduct. It is clearly fairer for an appeal process to be established and for an employee to have use of the appeal process
Reasonable – The nature and gravity of the offending behaviour is looked at here. The tribunal will ask whether the conduct was so bad as to destroy the relationship between employer and employee or did it merely cause annoyance. If the conduct was relatively minor, such as poor timekeeping, it may be deemed unreasonable for the employer to plump straight for instant dismissal without considering other sanctions.
A case by case basis
Each case is unique and it is advisable to treat them as such. Holding a hearing where an employee is represented by a trade union representative or lawyer will give them the chance to put forward any defence or mitigation to the conduct alleged. This, coupled with an appeal process should stamp out any claim that the process is not fair. Written reasons for summary dismissals are also required to rebut any allegations of discrimination due to different punishments as a result of certain mitigation.
The Herald reports today that Rangers are against being in a third Division of 18 – as if they have a say.
Being an associate member, in terms of reconstruction they are an irrelevance. However, being ‘Ra Peepel’ apparently gives credence, in MSM’s eyes at least, to their never ending whinging, bullying and threatening utterances …
…and another thing – are youse Oldco or Newco CG?
neepheid says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 19:43
Sandaza needs to get himself a good employment lawyer. There are absolutely no valid grounds for this dismissal. A good lawyer will take TRFC for loads of money on this one. Is Green losing the plot altogether? This really smacks of desperation.
========================================
But perhaps it suits Sandanza for this to happen? Would it not be likely he’s fed up with 3rd divivsion football and playing for a team struggling against part-timers? Green offers him a way out: we’ll give you a nice pay-off and make you free to sign for a half-decent club in a half-decent league instead, all you have to do is keep schtum about TRFC.
Carntyne Riddrie (@Riddrie) says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 10:49
paulmac2 says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 10:33
Is Neil Alexander in breach of contract?
Sandaza was sacked for what he thought was a private conversation….Neil Alexander makes a public criticism of Rangers…
==========================================================================
Doesn’t Alexander’s contract run out at the end of the season?
If so there’s no need for any action against the player.
I found Alexander’s pleas for a new contract rather strange.
It should be obvious to him that a decision has been made, and they no longer want or require his services.
……………………………………………………………
To be fair Carntyne…you are suggesting dismissal could be based on Financial benefit reasons…and that is not a basis on which an employer can consider whether an employee should be dismissed or not…
If Alexander is not considered worthy of dismissal for public criticism…then Sandaza has an even stronger case for unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination for a private conversation that was made public by a third party…that did not criticise their employer…
If both had committed gross misconduct…and one had a 3 year contract and 1 had a 3 month contract…both must be treated equally in the eyes of employment law…
briggsbhoy says: Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 11:17
Jockybhoy as employer you may be pissed with me but could you do what Sevco have done?
If it was a material breach of contract, i.e. it fell under gross misconduct, yeah I could fire you. No Notice, no compensation. Would I? Depends how important you were to me (hence perceived value comments). Could it be challenged? Yeah, especially if others had nopt been punished ofr the same offence.
Is this a cost saving exercise? possibly but why not try and punt him. It’s odd Jockbhoy that someone they thought was of value when he played with St Johnstone is now worth nothing to them.
Plenty of examples of players doing well at one team and failing horrendously at others – all our clubs have paid fees for guys who have left for nowt.
I think the key thing though was how much “of value” he was thought of when he signed for NewGers on a free… in fact looking at wikipedia it seems all of his last 3 or 4 moves were frees….
Hey, at least he’s banking signing bonuses 🙂
Alexander is in a difficult situation being he is getting mixed messages. On one hand his manager publicly says he wants him to stay even if Cammy Bell signs. On the other hand those in charge of the purse strings are now telling him a different story.
I think he has just misread the signals and at his age should have snapped their hand off for another one year deal at £10k a week
That being said, given all the talk of the disloyalty shown by Naismith et al you can see how a naive footballer may have thought that Green would have ‘rewarded’ a loyal servant of a publicly announced ‘cash rich’ club whose manager wants him to stay 🙂
I should add…if it can be determined on the grounds of descrimination…then there is no ceiling for a tribunal award..
chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 09:25
The bottom line is that he should politely have said “I’m sorry but i cannot discuss this” and ended the call there and then. Alternatively he could have told the caller that if they were interested in him they must approach his curent employer in the first instance.
Whatever anyone thinks of the rights and wrongs of what Rangers are doing, and whether their action in dismissing him is wrong, Mr Sandaza is where he is because of his own actions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No he is where he is because of the actions of Tommy and the over reaction by Rangers and their need to cut costs. A man has lost his livelihood and you blame him instead of Tommy. Marvellous.
I sense that many on here are happy that this situation is fine because it damages TRFC and what happened to Sandaza is to be tolerated as “collateral damage”. Am I wrong?
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 12:01
==================
Tommy, is an idiot who thinks he is funny and clever when he is neither.
If it is true that Mr Sandaza breached the terms of his contract then he is in the situation he is because of his own stupidity and duplicitousness. He even told the “agent” to keep it from his current employer, to me confirming he knew the situation and was acting out of greed, being totally disloyal to his current employer. An employer who was paying him well over £200,000 a year, for performing badly, with generous pay rises written into his contract.
As I said earlier his legitimate options were
1, Sorry I cannot discuss this matter with you.
2, If you are interested please contact my current club and seek their permission to speak to me.
3, Please speak to my agent (or representative) who deals with these matter.
And hanging up the phone. The option he took, having a fairly protracted conversation, discussing what he was currently getting and what he could possibly get if he moved was nothing more than disloyalty, duplicitousness and greed.
You may feel Mr Sandaza is the victm in this, I don’t Who knows what other conversations he may have had which weren’t recorded or made public.
Former Aberdeen FC Director Dave Cormack gives his thoughts on League reconstruction http://www.brightree.com/sites/default/files/SOS_DaveCormack.pdf
I feel a certain degree of sympathy for Sandaza. In my opinion it was a case of entrapment by Tommy that he perhaps should have considered more wisely before broadcasting the call. What, if anything, did we learn from it. So, some footballer would consider moving to a better league for more money, wouldn’t we all. That said, I also think that Sandaza was foolish in choosing to discuss contract details with someone he had never met. The stock reply should have been to refer him to his agent
We did learn though what his renumeration would be for the next few years. Now, having had his contract terminated this will either have to be paid up or some termination fee arrangement has been reached, probably including a gagging clause. This might cause some short term financial pain for The Rangers FC as I would have expected them to be able to normally offset this against a future transfer fee.
Just being fatuous but I wonder what the reaction would be if Sandaza employed Harper Mcleod to do his bidding for him in his fight against his dismissal.
🙂
Presumably they would also seek costs, should they win it.
Can anyone tell me if Supporters Direct Scotland have had, or can have, anything to offer the debate vis a vis league reconstruction, bending rules to suit a certain club etc,etc.The SDS web page makes great play of the results of the National Football Survey and fans involvement in their clubs, yet there is nothing to indicate where they stand on one of the biggest issues to have hit Scottish football ever.
So, does Supporters Direct Scotland have a contribution to make on the issues currently effecting football or is it a talking shop?
I ask the question in all sincerity.
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 12:01
——————————————–
I disagree, I don’t think there are many on here that are happy or in any way gloating about the situation, I think they just believe you reap what you sow.
I am personally in the camp that found the stunt totally wrong and couldn’t see the funny side of it long before the player was even suspended; different people have different sense of humours (can you say “humours”?) I suppose.
If there are actually people that find the result funny then I wouldn’t waste time conversing with them but as I said, don’t confuse that with people who just believe he is an adult and should have understood the implications of what he was doing.
brycecurdy says:
Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 20:21
330 4 Rate This
Let’s see how many this resonates with.
Clearly a lot of people are resonating with you Bryce.Only four people are willing to castigate your character.
wonder why ?
madbhoy24941 says: Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 12:31
Agreed. I got bored with these when Noel Edmonds used to do on Radio1 in the 80s. At least we can hope than Francisco doesn’t go the route of that poor nurse that got hoaxed re. Kate Middleton/Wales…
Just been in to pay a few bills at my local HBOS (for my sins too lazy to change account to a more reputable company!).
Anyway, like every bank these days, they constantly try and coerce you into taking on new credit cards and the like, when all you want to do is attend to your business and get out of there.
Today was such an example. The cashier, a young lad, tried to get me to take their new interest free credit card. He was pleasant enough but I couldn’t resist informing him that I wasn’t happy with his company and that it was only laziness that stopped me moving account.
The poor cashier wasn’t content to leave it there – “can I ask why you’re not happy with HBOS?”
Well where to start! Masterton was mentioned obviously but then I asked the young lad whether he had heard of Charlotte 18. The poor lad gave me a blank expression so I told him to enquire of the manager whether they were familiar with Charlotte 18!
I must have mentioned Charlotte 18 about ten times all in all, but being kind to the poor lad – he was only doing his job afterall – I told him perhaps it was best that he looked into Charlotte 18 on his own time!
I’ve now decided that any time HBOS try and sell me something I don’t want, rather than saying no, I’ll just go with Charlotte 18.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22027221
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22019724
Let me add I am not one of the four
madbhoy24941 says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 12:31
=====================
Personally I don’t think anyone comes out of it well. Tommy, Mr Sandaza or his employer.
A throughly unsavoury episode.
I agree that there isn’t much in the way of gloating here. What does surprise me though is the number of people sticking up for the footballer. Yes he was duped, however his actions behind his employers back were based it would appear on nothing but greed. The fact that it was a hoax call doesn’t change that, he clearly didn’t think it was and as such his actions should be taken in that context.
He was already on £200,000 a year, rising every year until it reached £500,000. This was when he was clearly underperforming. Yet he was still willing to break his own contract to make more, even telling the “agent” not to discuss the matter with the employer. Sorry but in this instance that was just wrong, the acceptance that “it happens all the time” does not change that.
Hasn’t AMcC spoken to the DU captain?
bawsbustedanatha says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:02
1 0 Rate This
Hasn’t AMcC spoken to the DU captain?
——————————–
so? he has 6 months left on his deal – he is free to talk to other clubs.
If Daly has revealed his current contract details to McCoist, it’s up to Dundee Utd if they want to behave in the same way as the new club.
What would be interesting in the Sandaza case is if he takes it to court….currently a footballer is prevented from talking to other clubs until he has 6 months left on his deal. However, why 6 months?
In normal employment law, i would be free to talk to anyone regards my future employment.
Why should sandaza not be allowed to discuss a job that he wouldn’t start for another 3 years (if he was to remain contracted to Sevco)
or why can’t he discuss another job and then it’s up to his new employer to reach an agreement to let the player move earlier.
I’m pretty sure if he took this to the EU, he’d win
bawsbustedanatha says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:02
Hasn’t AMcC spoken to the DU captain?
=============================================
Is Dalys contract not up in the summer and therefore,he’s free to speak to whoever he likes?.
just a thought…..did I imagine seeing Neil Alexander in the newspapers openly talking about his contract (not last week, but several months ago) he was complaining that his 12k a week deal was coming to an end and he was only being offered 10 or 11k per week for 1 year.
then he was on last week greeting about the offer being revoked and that he might have to leave the club – hinting at mischief making from someone involved in the process.
So, why wasn’t he sacked a few months ago?
and more importantly, if Sandaza takes this to a tribunal, doesn’t he have a perfect example of another player revealing contract details and talking about leaving the club yet receiving NO PUNISHMENT at all, never mind sacked.
http://www.wsc.co.uk/wsc-daily/1161-april-2013/9618-victory-for-french-fans-over-tv-scheduling
Would Scottish fans have the gumption for this?
bogsdollox says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 12:01
______________________________________
“I sense that many on here are happy that this situation is fine because it damages TRFC and what happened to Sandaza is to be tolerated as “collateral damage”. Am I wrong?”
You’re wrong…..In no way does the situation damage TRFC
You’re wrong that many on here happy with this situation.
You’re wrong that we feel what happened to Sandaza is acceptable.
Better go and get your senses checked.
Green has been able to offload a high earner who’s not been performing and he knew he’d never be able to get a transfer fee for him in the summer.
So it’s beneficial not damaging to TRFC. Am I right?
I don’t know the exact details of his contract, but reading between the lines it seems as if he has a decent legal claim against whoever he’s contracted to.
Who exactly was he allowed to disclose his earnings to? His Partner? Family? Friends? No one?
He didn’t know he was being recorded and didn’t know the details of his contract would be made public, so he’s not been in breach.
Discussing moving to another club ( Also known as tapping) is breaking SFA regulations, whether it’s breaching his contract of employment is another thing.
In reality he wasn’t really discussing moving to another club as it was a hoax.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:16
So, why wasn’t he sacked a few months ago?
and more importantly, if Sandaza takes this to a tribunal, doesn’t he have a perfect example of another player revealing contract details and talking about leaving the club yet receiving NO PUNISHMENT at all, never mind sacked.
__________________________________________________________________________
We don’t even know if his claim shall be accepted by an ET. You generally need to be employed for at least 2 years before a claim is accepted by an ET. There are exceptions though and how it would work with a footballer and his contract of employment, I don’t know.
It’s irrelevant what has or hasn’t been said by Alexander and or any or no punishment he received, It’s a separate issue.
Each case is accepted or declined on it’s own merits. Whatever Alexander did or didn’t say won’t be and can’t be used as evidence relating Sandaza’s claim
Just been reading up on the goings on in North Korea and can’t help but see the similarities with The Rangers:
1) A loud mouth leader who likes to think they are more important than they actually are.
2) An inhouse media that pumps out propoganda that keeps the peepils in the dark about whats actually going on.
3) A large population/support and this is the only real strength that they really do have.
4) not got a lot of cash.
5) they actually believe they are the most sucsessfull club/country in the world
6) the rest of the world openly laughs about them.
What a tumultuous week for Scottish football!
Managers profaning on the touchline…….players wanting more money…..whatever next?………………………..its armageddon!
smartbhoy says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:39
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:16
So, why wasn’t he sacked a few months ago?
and more importantly, if Sandaza takes this to a tribunal, doesn’t he have a perfect example of another player revealing contract details and talking about leaving the club yet receiving NO PUNISHMENT at all, never mind sacked.
__________________________________________________________________________
We don’t even know if his claim shall be accepted by an ET.
———————————————————–
so, what you are saying is that an employer can sack any employee within 2 years on “spurious” grounds and they may not be entitled to an ET
So, whats to stop clubs simply signing 4/5 players, see which 2 work out and binning the rest after a few months to save the wages?
bigsausagefingers says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 12:24
Just being fatuous but I wonder what the reaction would be if Sandaza employed Harper Mcleod to do his bidding for him in his fight against his dismissal. 🙂
———————————————————————————————————-
I think Rangers would be well pleased with that choice 🙂
Either we are all part players in some sort of Groundhog Day experience or it is simply deja vu but ,yes, twitter reveals that we have another No to Newco campaign.This time of the 2013 vintage.
I wonder if this will happen every year?
donsman33 says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:43
Just been reading up on the goings on in North Korea and can’t help but see the similarities with The Rangers:
==============================================================
Yea but Green doesn’t have anything more lethal than Big Hands and Elbows – if he had a nuke then that really would be Armageddon!
So to sum this week up, professional footballers, including ex professional, are greedy and use bad language.
Shocking stuff.
Can I just point out that football contracts are not the same as most of our work contracts. they are for a defined period at the end of which the player and the club agree to sever ties (unless the contract is renewed). If it was as simple to sack people on football contracts for nowt as some are making out I guarantee managers wouldn’t be getting compensation for getting sacked and players wouldn’t be getting £20k a week for playing in the reserves.
I am sure Sandaza feels aggrieved for the circumstances behind his sacking and the players union or his lawyers will look at his actual contract and decide what to do from there, but equally I am sure NewGers lawyers (who must be getting paid a bundle – that will be an interesting line to look for on the next accounts) feel he is in breach of contract and they have grounds for dismissal.
I expect some pay-off, like him getting paid to the end of the season (3 months notice in effect), perhaps with a bit more in exchange for a wee gagging clause…
Every day is an education on TSFM
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/t420-eng.pdf
Unfair dismissal
In general to claim unfair dismissal you must have worked continuously for the respondent for not less than two years. However, in certain circumstances in which unfair dismissal is claimed it may not be necessary to have worked for the respondent for two years.
• Being involved with a union
• Joining a union or choosing not to join one
• Being involved in health and safety activities either as an employer’s health and safety ‘officer’ or a worker’s representative
• Taking part in activities as a pension scheme trustee
• Being, or proposing to become, an ‘employee representative’
• Being a shop worker or a betting worker who refuses to work on a Sunday
• Using certain rights covered by the Working Time Regulations
• Being dismissed for pregnancy/pregnancy related reason
Breach of contract claims
If you are making a claim for breach of contract you should be aware that Employment Tribunals can only award compensation up to the sum of £25,000. If the amount of compensation you are claiming for a breach of contract is more than £25,000 you should pursue it through the High Court in England and Wales or the Sheriff Court or Court of Session in Scotland. You may wish to take legal advice.
What odds on Sandaza taking Charlie to the Court of Session?
Phil’s latest
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-save-sevco-campaign/#comment-43846
If another insolvency event occurs the SFA will not be able to continue under Campbell Ogilvie (or Stewart Regan)
Signs of reality reaching home?
http://bmcrangersrants.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/charles-green-revisited/
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 14:28
1 0 Rate This
Signs of reality reaching home?
http://bmcrangersrants.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/charles-green-revisited/
That’s the best post from a “rangers” perspective that I’ve seen since this saga began. I hope he’s wearing his tin hat, though, he’ll need it once the comments come in!
neepheid says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 15:04
I got it after a Twitter conversation with a Rangers supporter who started off calling me obsessed with Rangers but came around to seeing I was obsessed with the behaviour of the SFA. 🙂
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:48
0 0 Rate This
_____________________________________
smartbhoy says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:39
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:16
So, why wasn’t he sacked a few months ago?
and more importantly, if Sandaza takes this to a tribunal, doesn’t he have a perfect example of another player revealing contract details and talking about leaving the club yet receiving NO PUNISHMENT at all, never mind sacked.
__________________________________________________________________________
We don’t even know if his claim shall be accepted by an ET.
———————————————————–
so, what you are saying is that an employer can sack any employee within 2 years on “spurious” grounds and they may not be entitled to an ET
So, whats to stop clubs simply signing 4/5 players, see which 2 work out and binning the rest after a few months to save the wages
_________________________________________
I don’t get you, who wasn’t sacked a few months ago? Alexander?
As I told you, each case is taken on it’s own merit and then the appropriate measures are taken by the employer. I don’t know if Alexander was disciplined or not. Nor do I know what the details of his contract are.
Whatever Alexander did has no relevance on Sandaza’s case. It’s employment law, I didn’t make the law.
The outcome of Sandaza’s case would have been based on the evidence given at the disciplinary and his defence,
His defence can’t be ” Oh well Alexander did it and nothing happened to him, so why am i being disciplined”
Each and every case is taken on it’s own merits.
__________________________________
I don’t know how employment law works with footballers and their contracts. I’m only stating the facts of ET’s as I’ve been involved in many over the years.
But any normal employer can employ you for just under 2 years and then let you go They don’t need to give a reason. Again, I don’t make the employment law.
You can only make a claim to an ET after you’ve exhausted all appeal processes with your employer, though you have claim within 3 months of the date of your dismissal not the date of your appeal.
There as exceptions as I said which are stated below, but I’m sure Mr Sandaza will have the best legal advice regarding his rights.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/employment/claims/making-a-claim
Hopefully this has not been posted, if so sorry.
http://t.co/xVJgxbdVvF
No means no
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 13:08
Merely pointing out how rediculous the whole thing is.
I couldn’t care less whom spoke to whom.
chipm0nk says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 10:30
Sacking McCoist will be very costly. Wasn’t he reported to be on £775k a year?
Dont know his contract length but would imagine he’d have a clause for a minimum of 12 months pay in lieu of notice.
More likely he’ll go “upstairs” or perhaps chief scout?
Agree McCall is a sensible choice on current performance although his record at Bradford was pretty woeful.
If the grand plan is for McCall to be the manager, why would he have signed his new contract?
jockybhoy says:
Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 14:03
I expect some pay-off, like him getting paid to the end of the season (3 months notice in effect), perhaps with a bit more in exchange for a wee gagging clause…
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
I agree.
But… “pay-off… notice… gagging clause…”!!!?
To be ‘nice'” about it, I might use terms like… “The Club and Mr Sandaza have reached a Compromise Agreement”. 🙂
That’s the best post from a “rangers” perspective that I’ve seen since this saga began. I hope he’s wearing his tin hat, though, he’ll need it once the comments come in!
As I said to Auldheid, we are not all gullible.
Didnt catch the actual interview last night on BBC Scotland but managed to read the “audio text” on my screen of Longmuir angling for a job at Ibrox
Did anyone tape this piece?