Sixty-seven players 'in legal action' over Rangers contract transfer

[forlanssister 3,114]

About as clear as it can get:

 

 

 

Sone Aluko ‏@sonealuko

 

I DONT have nor am I interested in slightest in any claims/tribunals and any other scenario of that nature against anyone. Not my style!

 

Retweeted by Frankie

 

Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More

[kuznetsov 0]

incredible. it really is.

[simplythebest 0]

If Aluko etc are not lying somebody needs strung up.

[forlanssister 3,114]

PFA Scotland wishes to clarify the situation with regard to the Protective Award claim referred to in the Rangers International Football Club share prospectus. There has been a reaction to the matter becoming public and it is important that PFA Scotland’s position is clearly set out to prevent any further misunderstandings.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only. It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any Player let alone some 67 individual Players as has been reported.

 

It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instructions. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name. PFA Scotland regularly represents its members as a collective – for example when speaking to the football governing bodies.

 

It is also important to clarify the legal basis of the claim. The law places an obligation on employers to collectively consult with trade unions/employee representatives in advance of a TUPE transfer and trade unions/ employee representatives regularly litigate such claims before Employment Tribunals.

 

In this instance PFA Scotland was so sufficiently concerned about the lack of communication from Duff and Phelps prior to any proposed TUPE transfer that correspondence was sent on 5th April 2012 reminding them of the Players’ rights under the TUPE legislation and recommending that these rights be highlighted to any potential buyers. This was again highlighted in the media later that month.

 

Unfortunately, Duff and Phelps failed to enter into any consultation whatsoever with the Players and PFA Scotland.

 

It may be that no player will pursue this. That will simply be a matter for each Player and in fact many of the Players have already stated that they will waive any such entitlement. It must be stressed that the motive for PFA Scotland in pursuing this claim has never been financial.

 

As well as being a response to the SFA Arbitration claims, the Protective Award claim involves an important point of principle since our rights as representatives of the Players were wholly disregarded by those involved in the TUPE transfer.

 

PFA Scotland instructed our Solicitors to write to the Solicitors for the Administrators and Rangers newco on 19th July 2012 stating that whilst PFA Scotland had the right to lodge a Protective Award claim it had no desire to do so and would abandon the claim provided certain undertakings were given including withdrawal of the SFA Arbitration.

 

The offer to withdraw the Protective Award claim still stands in the event of the SFA breach of contract proceedings being withdrawn against our members.

 

Once the SFA arbitration process and Protective Award proceedings are complete we will as always take direct instructions from individual members.

 

 

http://pfascotland.co.uk/2012/news/s...e-award-claim/

[BlueMazza 0]

PFA Scotland wishes to clarify the situation with regard to the Protective Award claim referred to in the Rangers International Football Club share prospectus. There has been a reaction to the matter becoming public and it is important that PFA Scotlandâ??s position is clearly set out to prevent any further misunderstandings.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the claim for a Protective Award has been raised in the name of PFA Scotland only. It is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any Player let alone some 67 individual Players as has been reported.

 

It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instructions. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name. PFA Scotland regularly represents its members as a collective â?? for example when speaking to the football governing bodies.

 

It is also important to clarify the legal basis of the claim. The law places an obligation on employers to collectively consult with trade unions/employee representatives in advance of a TUPE transfer and trade unions/ employee representatives regularly litigate such claims before Employment Tribunals.

 

In this instance PFA Scotland was so sufficiently concerned about the lack of communication from Duff and Phelps prior to any proposed TUPE transfer that correspondence was sent on 5th April 2012 reminding them of the Playersâ?? rights under the TUPE legislation and recommending that these rights be highlighted to any potential buyers. This was again highlighted in the media later that month.

 

Unfortunately, Duff and Phelps failed to enter into any consultation whatsoever with the Players and PFA Scotland.

 

It may be that no player will pursue this. That will simply be a matter for each Player and in fact many of the Players have already stated that they will waive any such entitlement. It must be stressed that the motive for PFA Scotland in pursuing this claim has never been financial.

 

As well as being a response to the SFA Arbitration claims, the Protective Award claim involves an important point of principle since our rights as representatives of the Players were wholly disregarded by those involved in the TUPE transfer.

 

PFA Scotland instructed our Solicitors to write to the Solicitors for the Administrators and Rangers newco on 19th July 2012 stating that whilst PFA Scotland had the right to lodge a Protective Award claim it had no desire to do so and would abandon the claim provided certain undertakings were given including withdrawal of the SFA Arbitration.

 

The offer to withdraw the Protective Award claim still stands in the event of the SFA breach of contract proceedings being withdrawn against our members.

 

Once the SFA arbitration process and Protective Award proceedings are complete we will as always take direct instructions from individual members.

 

Their own words. So another lesson to be learned people, if the DR spouts it on their front page about us it's probably shite & we shouldn't launch at players either.

 

Clear indication of the mhedia stance if ever there was one.

[der Berliner 3,744]

And so the bubble bursts.

[RabiDuck 89]

It must be stressed that the motive for PFA Scotland in pursuing this claim has never been financial.

 

I for one would be happier if the motive WAS financial, the concern is that the motive is the pursuit of further action against the club!

[Darthter 542]

Who thinks the DR will publish the PFA's full statement on the front page tomorrow???

[kuznetsov 0]

there are no bubbles bursting at all.

[GovanAllan 0]

Another shambles it seems from a football body in Scotland, oh well at least the lot of them are consistent.