Jackson: SFA v Rangers: The strange case of the legal action without witnesses

[ian1964 10,721]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...e-case-1485866

 

AMID a great deal of confusion and high anxiety it seems another cluster bomb has gone off inside Ibrox.

 

The news of a potential courtroom battle with Scotlandâ??s playersâ?? union exploded into the public domain on Monday evening after a legal claim involving 67 current and former players was documented inside the glossy pages of the brochure Charles Green is using to woo would-be investors.

 

Green, of course, has dismissed it all as b******s in just the way we have come to expect of this dyed-in-the-wool Yorkshireman who says what he likes and likes what he bloody well says.

 

But the more the smoke began to clear last night the more it appeared he has a point. And a bloody good one.

 

By teatime, after another hectic day of statements and counter statements, this latest legal wrangle to rock the old red brick facade was degenerating into something of a farce.

 

Rangers captain Lee McCulloch spoke exclusively to Record Sport to confirm that, far from giving PFA Scotland a mandate to go after Green, he and his team-mates were horrified at the very thought of it.

 

No wonder. McCulloch, remember, was prepared to offer his services for free not that many months ago when Rangers were being smashed into oblivion by Craig Whyte.

 

Now, here he is, open to accusations of opportunism and plain old money grabbing. So it was only too right he had his say last night when he told why he would never dream of sanctioning such a selfish, greedy move.

 

But this was, to a large extent, to be expected. What was not so obvious or easy to see coming was the clamour among his team-mates, new and old, to completely disassociate themselves from the unionâ??s bidding.

 

By McCullochâ??s reckoning all 18 of those who stayed behind last summer wish to play no part in it.

 

Neil Alexander and Lee Wallace â?? the only other senior pros left over from Whyteâ??s brutal regime â?? are standing shoulder to shoulder with their captain.

 

But they are not alone. In fact, they were rushing in from all corners yesterday to insist they too have no desire to go after a penny of Greenâ??s money.

 

Some of what went on was beyond bizarre.

 

Sone Aluko, for example, one of three players who as the club also states in its own prospectus, is currently taking it to court claiming constructive dismissal. Not true according to Alukoâ??s own Twitter feed yesterday.

 

It said: â??I donâ??t have, nor am I interested in, any claims, tribunals or anything of that nature against anyone. It's not my style. I proved this in 2011 and nothing changed in 2012. Itâ??s a messy route no one gains from.â?

 

Then we received information from people close to Steven Naismith and Steven Whittaker that neither of them endorse the unionâ??s case or have any intention of asking for money, which really would have been an act of obscenity given they are now among the high rollers of the Premier League.

 

Allan McGregor too knows nothing of this and wants nothing to do with it, at least according to the Twitter account of the mother of his child that is â?? and who are we to disbelieve her?

 

John Fleck is another who has no interest in the proceedings.

 

As one by one they ruled themselves out, the more this whole charade was exposed as a rather clumsy piece of tactical tub-thumping.

 

The real crux of this matter has nothing to do with 67 players. In fact, Rangers are believed to be enraged by what they regard as brinkmanship from the union. Sources inside Ibrox have even cast serious doubt over the large number of contracts that have been set aside for a possible tribunal. If they had 67 players on their books then where were they hiding all the good ones?

 

No, the real battle here is more likely to concern just six players and itâ??s one both sides are determined to win. Or at least not to lose.

 

Wishart wants to force Rangers to stop chasing after cash Green believes the club are due from the summer moves of McGregor, Kyle Lafferty, Aluko, Naismith, Whittaker and Jamie Ness â?? who he believes were guilty of breaching their contracts by moving on as free agents.

 

But Fraser Wishart and PFA Scotlandâ??s legal team vehemently disagree.

 

Wishart released a statement of his own yesterday in which he hinted strongly he will drop the â??Big Playersâ?? Caseâ? immediately if Green backs down on his demands to chase after damages from the â??The Wee Playersâ?? Caseâ?.

 

Green has left that one with the great minds of the SFA who will arbitrate just as soon as their New Year hangovers have cleared, or January 7 to be exact.

 

But if they should attempt to stop him chasing after the players and their new clubs in search of recompense then, as Green said yesterday, he will take it to the law lords for approval.

 

In his own statement Green made it clear he has no intention of backing down on his claims for compensation over the deals that saw McGregor join Besiktas, Lafferty head to Sion, Aluko to Hull and Whittaker, Naismith and Ness move to the Premiership with Norwich, Everton and Stoke.

 

Green said: â??In reality, we are talking about six players who have some form of dispute rather than 67.

 

â??Rangers fans will note how the club captain Lee McCulloch and a number of other players have quickly disassociated themselves from this action. I have also had the father of one player calling, quite furious his young son has been attached to an action he knew nothing about.

 

â??PFA Scotland has confirmed as much in its statement earlier today. That statement confirms the failure to consult claim, apparently lodged for the benefit of 67 players, will be withdrawn if the clubâ??s SFA damages claim against the six players is dropped.

 

â??The purpose of the failure to consult claim is therefore not to safeguard the rights of the 67 players but to attempt to persuade the club to abandon its legitimate pursuit of compensation from players who, in the club's view, walked out on their contracts of employment.â?

 

Wishart, though, insists fundamental rules of employment were broken when Green first pieced together his deal to buy the clubâ??s assets for £5.5million from administrators Duff and Phelps.

 

He maintains his members were not properly informed or consulted throughout the process that saw their contracts transferred under TUPE regulation from oldco to newco.

 

And, in this regard, he has a bloody good point too. There was a breakdown in communication between boardroom and dressing room throughout that traumatic period as the club sank.

 

But given none of these players seems even remotely bothered about it now â?? with most just relieved to be in a better place than at Ibrox or elsewhere â?? and given he appears ready and willing to horse-trade it for something else, the mandate for such action may already be fatally flawed.

[26th of foot 6,082]

As good as this article is, it appears as an exercise in damage limitation for the Daily Record. Yesterday, the Record trumpeted the story of 67 Rangers players taking legal recourse against the club. Since, the vast majority of those involved have stated they have NO interest in the action being persued by the Scottish PFA. The story was not properly referenced and Jackson has been wheeled out to play good cop.

 

Of course, the Record could go directly to source and speak to Margaret Gribbon, the Scottish PFA lawyer with her hand firmly on the tiller of the action. Further, they could have contacted former MSP Rosie Kane, as she sits beside Margaret in the North Stand at ra Stydome. However, in lieu of Jim Traynor's new employment and the Record's deal to print both ra Sellik View and Sellik programme; they deliberately took the path of least resistance.

[Guest cail]

Apologies,,double post.

[Tumshie RFC 0]

It's a very strange one this. I think this has been purely engineered by the SPFA because they know that Green will win the case against the players who walked away.

[Scott7 6,002]

First we have PFA or whoever is behind them apparently acting for individuals without instruction which prompted a damage limitarion statement yesterday saying the Tribunal application was really on behalf of the Union. OK. I'll believe that. It's Christmas after all.

 

Now we have a public statement that PFA will drop their case if Rangers drop theirs. Now this sort of bargaining goes on all the time in private but making it public smacks of abuse of process.

 

What will PFA's "legal team" say to that?

[54andcounting 0]

At the end of the day..this story managed to outshine coverage of our 140 years celebrations and sold more newspapers

[aweebluesoandso 290]

So we are supposed to ignore another high profile die hard Celtic minded supporter, with a conflict of interest against Rangers are we?

[The Real PapaBear 0]

of all the rats who left the sinking ship who have denied being involved, one name is conspicuously absent - and his was the first name that sprang to my mind when this action was announced. Anyone?

[aweebluesoandso 290]

of all the rats who left the sinking ship who have denied being involved, one name is conspicuously absent - and his was the first name that sprang to my mind when this action was announced. Anyone?

 

Did he have a reputation for having sexual relations with multiple partners in a night?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

i would like to see us win the case against the deserters but i have my doubts i have to say. tupe laws are pretty clear.