Uilleam

A Cnut, then, unable to hold back the tide, in this instance that of history. English, on the other hand is a.....work it out yourself... Apparently, he iconic Cnut was demonstrating that even he, King of England, Norway, and Denmark, could not hold back the waves, and the popular story is a subversion of the original. In any event, the tide, obeyed its own laws, as does history.

You would think. You would think, also, that the Board must have been clear that they had received bona fide resignations, however they were delivered. There would be too much hassle, too much reputational damage, and potentially too much expense for the Club to "wing it".

Wikipedia? A couple of books, paid for via expenses, maybe even claimed against tax, as well. Amazing what dodges you can pick up by osmosis from Rangers' accounts. Have they ever been seen in the same place at the same time? If not, there's your clincher.

Perhaps the League Managers' Assocn could recommend a good solicitor.

Sharia Law prevails. I wonder if they have 'Strict Liability'?

Is "Brahim Hemdani" not the Gersnet nom de plume of Tom English?

Somebody has stuck £250 on Big Eck, and Bookiesplc has had a fit of the vapours. It would make sense to have the DoF in place before further recruitment, unless the Board wishes an appointment pro tem, to the end of the season, when they propose to employ a DoF and a Coaching Team. The DoF route seems to exclude the usual suspects, beyond the shortest of short terms, unless one of those usual suspects is plucked from his billet, and installed as DoF.

Even for 'the wearing of the green'? A mistake, surely?

One thing that sticks in my craw, and which we should not forget, is that if the three caballeros best laid plans had not gone agley, somewhere (on The Brian Clough Way, for all I know), they would have been in charge of Nottingham Forest last weekend, without a single thought for Rangers, Rangers' support, Rangers' staff, or anything whatsoever to do with the Club. They do appear to have been hoist by their own petard, somewhat ironic for what, in any analysis, were three damp squibs.

It really is foolish to speculate, with no knowledge of the circumstances and less of the Law. However, at risk of looking daft, I will say that there appear to be two principal considerations: 1. The resignations on Day 1 2. The attempted withdrawal of said resignations on Day 4. From what we can tell, the Club feels the initial resignations were valid, bona fide resignations; this position can only be reinforced by the endeavours to renegotiate a position on Day 4, when, we surmise, the NFFC appointments fell through. One cannot withdraw a resignation, unless one had resigned in the first place. The period between Day 1 and the Club's statement is surely explained by:- -the asumption that the resignations would be put in writing -the need to get agreement from the Board to the conditions requested by the resigners -the need to take advice on the binding nature of the resignations, and the Club's position in law, esp in the light of the attempted tactical withdrawal Apart from which, if Rag, Tag, and Bobtail do not wish to work for Rangers, they can fuck right off.

English seems to be one of those simpletons who confuse what one wishes to be true, with what is true. It is a dangerous trait, in any line of work, not merely in sports' writing. The other evening on Radio Scotland he opined that a (any) resignation had to be put in writing, which we know to be patent nonsense. Yesterday he sent out "Tweets" in which he cast doubt about the veracity of Rangers' audited accounts. At face value, these communications appear to libel the Directors of the Club, and the Auditors. If they do, I sincerely hope that they take action. We should note that the impact of such calumnies may be significant, if, eg, The Board wished to have a shares issue.

I'm with you on that, but I am no expert, and neither of us are privy to the exact circumstances. Of course, I haven't sought advice from the Kerrydale Street Oracles, which should be the 1st port of call for all matters pertaining to Rangers.

Disambiguation, I think that is called.

The Rateable Value purports to be an objective assessment, by the City Assessor (in Glasgow). The poundage rate is set by the Scottish Government. Rangers could appeal the RV assessment. I think that Ibrox is classified -by UEFA- as a higher class stadium than the piggery. (A schoolboy could have come to the same conclusion). One of the factors contributing to that ranking -apart from the obvious- is transport links, which would affect RV, also. Having said that, one might think that the piggery's higher capacity might reasonably be reflected in a higher RV.

In practice, there will be "Selective Liability", imposed strictly. I think we all know how such selectivity will work.

Take the positives: A longer session after the match, of which, frankly, but unhappily, you may have need.

I'm sorry but I saw the phrase, it literally jumped off the page, "..The late, great, Tommy Burns..", boked, and did not read the piece.

It strikes me that the resignation was conditional on the Club's agreement to waive compensation, only. The difficulty may be that they will claim that there was merely an intention to resign, not a formal resignation. Anyway, here is a legal blog from employment solicitors for your edification, and delight. https://www.dallasmcmillan.co.uk/Blog/Employment-law/when-is-a-resignation-a-resignation-did-mark-warburton-resign-from-rangers.html When is a resignation a resignation? Did Mark Warburton ‘resign’ from Rangers? Monday, 13 February 2017 David Hutchison Employment Law Legal 310 Hits 0 Comments Once again, employment law is in the news following the resignation of Mark Warburton from Rangers. There was initially some confusion regarding events, with Warburton and his team adamant they had not resigned from their position. This post looks at the legalities surrounding resignation, and examines what does and what doesn’t amount to a resignation. The relationship between an employer and employee can be terminated by either party and, depending on the circumstances, this can be with notice or without notice. If, following a disciplinary process, an employee is found to have committed an act of gross misconduct then this may result in the employer dismissing the employee without notice pay. In a similar way, if the employee feels that there has been a fundamental breach of their contract of employment by the employer, then this may allow the employee to resign without notice and thereafter claim constructive dismissal. In the majority of terminations, notice by the party will normally be given. The minimum notice periods are set out at section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. When an employee has been employed for more than one month but less than two years, the notice period will be one week. The notice period will then increase for each year of service up to a maximum of 12 weeks. Notice periods can be increased in the contract of employment and so this document should always be checked before notice of termination is given. How do you resign? There are no set requirements for a valid resignation. A resignation can in some circumstances be inferred from the conduct of the employee. A verbal resignation can be just as effective. Good practice however would be for an employee to set out their resignation in writing to the employer. Once an employee gives notice that they wish to terminate their employment, this cannot unilaterally be withdrawn by the employee. An employer will be entitled to treat the employee as having resigned from their employment even if the employee at a later date wishes to stay. A resignation by an employee will only be withdrawn if there is agreement between both parties. The intention to resign in contrast to an actual resignation Employers should also take care as to the difference between an ‘intention to resign’ and actual resignation. If an employee sets out to the employer that they may resign sometime in the future, the Employment Tribunal may consider this as merely an intention rather than an actual resignation. Employers should always consider the wording (or spoken terms) of any resignation to ensure it will constitute a valid resignation. If the employer is in doubt, then they should seek clarity from the employee. An example of an intention to resign may be when an employee approaches the employer to say that there is the possibility of the employee finding alternative work. In the case of Ely v YKK Fasteners (UK) Ltd 1994 ICR 164, an employee was looking to leave for an alternative job in Australia. The employee told the employer that they would be resigning in the near future although no date was provided. The job in Australia fell through and wished to stay. The employer decided that the employee had resigned. The Employment Tribunal held that there had been no resignation as no termination date was provided and one could not be established from the facts of the case. However, the Tribunal decided that the employer genuinely expected the employee to resign and that the resignation would be supplied in a few days. The Tribunal found that while there was no resignation, there was a dismissal for ‘some other substantial reason’. The Employment Tribunal’s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal. When there is ambiguity in the words or the conduct Ambiguity can often occur in the heat of the moment. An employer may say to an employee that “you’re finished” or “get off my site” which may lead the employee to question if their employment has been terminated or if this is just the ramblings of a stressed manager that will be forgotten about after an hour. The wording of an employee may also be ambiguous with some examples including “I’ve had enough” or “I’m done”. It is often the case that matters are resolved within the work place. However, there will be occasions when the Employment Tribunal will have to determine if there has been a resignation. In these cases, the Employment Tribunal will consider (1) the surrounding circumstances and (2) how would a reasonable employer or employee have understood the words in the circumstances. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held that when there is ambiguity, it will be construed against the person who is seeking to rely on it. The Employment Tribunal will use the same two stage test when considering correspondence between the parties and not just for the oral words that may have been used. Forced resignation or resignation by deception An Employment Tribunal will not find that an employee has resigned if they have been forced to do so by the employer. The principles that will be applied by the Employment Tribunal in such cases was set out in the Court of Appeal case of Martin v Glynwed Distribution Ltd 1983 ICR 511.This can happen when an employee is told that they have no future with the company and it may be better for their future prospects if they have resigned rather than be dismissed. An employer in these circumstances will not be able to rely solely on a resignation letter to maintain that there has been a resignation. When an employee is subject to disciplinary proceedings, then the employee may decide that resignation is a better outcome than a dismissal for gross misconduct. In these circumstances it will normally be held that it was the employee who resigned by their own choice. When an employer has acted in such a way to obtain a resignation by dishonest or deceptive means, the Employment Tribunal is likely to find that there has been a dismissal by the employer rather than a resignation. An example may be when an employer suggests that there may be mass redundancies in order to reduce staff levels. Staff may look to resign and seek alternative employment rather than wait on the inevitable. If there was no basis for such a claim, then the Employment Tribunal may find that there was a dismissal rather than a resignation. Care should always be taken when either an employer or employee decides to terminate the working relationship. Parties should be clear and concise and make reference to the termination date when the relationship will cease. Good practice is for any termination by the employee to be in writing. The resignation should always come from the employee themselves and not through an agent or third party. If there is a resignation by a third party on behalf of the employee, the Employment Tribunal may find (depending on the circumstances of the case) that there has been no resignation by the employee.

Guy should downsize.

I am unconvinced that the Club needs to pay them anything. They resigned. a f a i k, and were allowed to walk off without serving notice, to seek employment elsewhere, without compensation to cover the outstanding time for which they had contracted. As far as any 'disclosures' are concerned, let them publish and be damned.

Well, thank you, and good night, chaps. Be careful out there. It seems to me rather difficult for both parties to misinterpret a resignation, whether in writing, by fax, by e mail, or verbally (in front of corroborating witnesses), even if such resignation was conditional upon one of the parties (the employer, in this case) meeting or agreeing to certain terms. Personally, if I was trying to extricate myself from a contract of employment, with the best outcome for myself, I would employ a solicitor to handle the negotiations, rather than a football agent, no matter how fly he was.

I can't disagree.

My impression has always been that a DoF/TD will work with a 1st team coach , rather than with the traditional Manager/"Mister"; much of the "managerial" workload will be done by the DoF/TD. Therefore, it is unlikely that a traditional UK type Manager, will sit comfortably within such a structure, particularly if he is a bigger 'name' than the DoF. It may be an interesting, and prudent, way forward, because either of the two incumbents -DoF or Ist Team Coach- could depart without the total and cataclysmic effect that a Manager's departure has, inevitably it appears. In theory, changes in personnel could happen seamlessly, particularly on the coaching side. Probably, a good DoF will be harder to replace. No doubt I am wrong, and will be told so shortly.

The problem with Murrayfield is the local vociferous middle class community, which would, quite rightly, force the Licencing Cttee to kibosh the very idea. The Tablecloths and Timberlands urinating into the well kept gardens of a douce Edinburgh suburb is a vision somewhat short of great and sublime beauty. Anyway, the Plan, quite clearly, is for the SFA, and the other unnecessary administrations, to move into, or near the pigsty, and for the National XI to play, if not all, then the substantial majority of its games @porkheid. There is already a little background music, lauding its "unique" atmosphere (I could agree with that, frankly, but for other reasons) and so forth.

Making a lady laugh is half the battle, mon ami.