the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 Last year Ally spoke about the transfer embargo saying that it could 'kill the club'. I think in hindsight he'd agree that was an exaggeration, but he was serious about it at the time. What he have with this situation and the truth behind it is something that possibly does have the potential to kill the club. Maybe in hindsight I'll be happy to take that back. I hope I will. If the truth actually is so harmful though, are you sure you still want it? we need the truth no matter what. even if its that whyte still owns a significant part of the club. or worse if he really does have a case against d@p and sevco scotland. though i suspect that it would really be d@P we cant go on as we are just now with lie after lie being exposed. on the embargo at that point was it not going to kick in immediately and leave us with hardly a player when ally said that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 on the embargo at that point was it not going to kick in immediately and leave us with hardly a player when ally said that? At that point we still had a full squad and a CVA to look foward to, so no. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 we need the truth no matter what. even if its that whyte still owns a significant part of the club. or worse if he really does have a case against d@p and sevco scotland. though i suspect that it would really be d@P we cant go on as we are just now with lie after lie being exposed. I agree we can't carry on with them all being exposed. That's part of the point I was making. If something is revealed to the public domain which takes power away from the club and results in SFA expulsion or worse, then would you not agree it's better for the club to keep it under wraps? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 deedle on ff says the rangers men on the board want green gone. deedle is rarely wrong on these matters. this investigation could simply be a step on the road to getting rid in the proper manner. but we really need to wait and see. Frankie hit the nail on the head IMO. Could be a clear out, but done totally by the book, and therefore with no redress for legal action. Protracted legal action would be the last thing we needed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 Frankie hit the nail on the head IMO.Could be a clear out, but done totally by the book, and therefore with no redress for legal action. Protracted legal action would be the last thing we needed. No need for that surely, if minds are made up just give him what he's due and move on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 I agree we can't carry on with them all being exposed. That's part of the point I was making. If something is revealed to the public domain which takes power away from the club and results in SFA expulsion or worse, then would you not agree it's better for the club to keep it under wraps? even if we had to start from scratch a second time it would be worth it. but i would also point out the sfa's articles of association prevent them from punishing a member club if it has been the victim of a crime. if green has done something illegal then the sfa cant punish rangers for that. to that end the sfa could be in bother if it turns out whyte acted illegally in buying us because they have already punished us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 No need for that surely, if minds are made up just give him what he's due and move on. their are laws surrounding sacking people. remember charles is employed by rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 their are laws surrounding sacking people. remember charles is employed by rangers. So if nothing new is uncovered what exactly is the difference? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 So if nothing new is uncovered what exactly is the difference? you have to follow employment law if you want to sack someone. that includes full investigation. the right to representation and following a companies hr practices. i am not saying that is what this is but it could be. if the investigation find nothing that warrants sacking then you cant sack them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 14, 2013 Author Share Posted April 14, 2013 well you can but you will loose the employment tribunal that follows. some employers sack people knowing full well they will loose the emplyment tribunal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.