Green's players' contract purchase invalid

God, tell him to keep his hands off our player!!!

meant to say Good, but God works as well, I guess

Obviously, I bow to Adrian's greater working knowledge. From my own viewpoint I, along with several colleagues, was involved in a TUPE argument around a year ago. As a group we considered it wise to learn as much as we could about TUPE regulations and Adrian is absolutely correct in what he says. The employee, in this case the player, must effectively volunteer to transfer to the "Newco". It is absolutely the employee's right and can not be forced upon him/her.

My understanding is that a group of Rangers players, including Naismith, made it clear at the time that they did not want this to happen, in which case, Charles Green does not legally have a leg to stand on, indeed he may well have acted outside the law and could, in fact now become the subject of some unwelcome attention.

The confusing issue for me is the stance adopted by the SFA. Either they are not fully aware of the law and/or circumstances, or they are merely sitting on the fence and waiting for a higher authority to make their decision for them. I am personally very confident that Naismith's transfer will be ratified but it is an unwelcome diversion.

This fellow should have been pushing, at time of purchase, to just let Rangers back in anywhere, even the bottom rung and issue "We'll be back up top sooner than you think" type statements.

Instead this cheap and petty side-show. If I was a Rangers fan, I would be worried about the guy who just bought my Club, not where the club will be positioned next season.

"To suggest otherwise would take away the right of an employee to object to being transferred, which is a right enshrined in law."
------------------
This was always surely obvious. Britain has a long history of law; for the players not to have the right to object to their contracts being bought by someone else without their say-so would be tantamount to slavery - albeit a well-paid slavery.

If the company I worked at went belly up, they could sell assets and name of co to another, but they would have to ask me if I wanted to go, not just tell me.

Michael Stanley @785. It appears that the SFA have no choice but to refer the issue to FIFA as international registration of transfers needs to be signed off by all parties involved. As Rangers refuse to sign the registration papers, the SFA therefore have no option but to pass the buck.

Charles Green has been blowing chunks for weeks over this. It amazes me why he persists making himself look like he is a complete dick.

It's totally obvious he cannot restrict the trade of practice of any employee who does not agree in writing to the transfer of a contract from one concern to another.

Everton will have taken council prior to completing Naismith's transfer. My bet is the QC laughed when asked if Rangers had any case against them.

But the players are not just 'employees' Roberto. The club (company) own their registration which is a transferrable asset. (Can you sell your house without transferring the title deed?)

Look at third party ownesrhip of players (e.g. Tevez) – would there have been so many problems with him if it was a case of the player (asset) has no obligation to the owner and could walk away?

Eric

This situation is different to Tevez. Rangers, the employer, went bust, and also failed to pay wages for weeks on end. Then they transferred their business to what looks like a Div 3 club. This gives the players plenty of grounds to walk away, whereas in the Tevez case their was no breach of contract by the employing club.

You are right that the club (i.e. the defunct Rangers) owns the players registration, but Rangers has been expelled from the Scottish FA so not sure they can hold any registrations. They of course wish to transfer these registrations to Newco, but it is not clear if Newco is yet a member of the Scottish FA or Scottish Football League. I do not know enough about the transferability of these registrations but I am would be amazed if a players registration could be transferred without his/her consent.

Green may well have paid for these "assets" but he must have known that not all the "assets" will come over. It is always the case with a transfer of business. In addition in this case the fact that the new club will be playing 3 leagues below the old club must constitute constructive dismissal – i.e. giving all the players the right to treat their contracts as being terminated by the club.

I don't think there is anything to worry about here.

Eric
This situation is different to Tevez. Rangers, the employer, went bust, and also failed to pay wages for weeks on end. Then they transferred their business to what looks like a div 3 club. This gives the players plenty of grounds to walk away, whereas in the Tevez case their was no breach of contract by the employing club.

You are right that the club (i.e. the defunct Rangers) owns the players registration, but Rangers has been expelled from the Scottish FA so not sure they can hold any registrations. They of course wish to transfer these registrations to Newco, but it is not clear if Newco is yet a member of the Scottish FA or Scottish Football League. I do not know enough about the transferability of these registrations but I am would be amazed if a players registration could be transferred without his/her consent.

Green may well have paid for these "assets" but he must have known that not all the "assets" will come over. It is always the case with a transfer of business. In addition in this case the fact that the new club will be playing 3 leagues below the old club must constitute constructive dismissal - i.e. giving all the players the right to treat their contracts as being terminated by the club.

I don't think there is anything to worry about here.

OK Dave, I heard you first time ;-)

Not sure that a club being relegated would be grounds for constructive dismissal though?

Eric
Relegation would not be grounds for constructive dismissal - but being relegated 3 divisions (for cause) would be far outside the normal range of expectation of employees of Rangers, and would damage the career of the players in question. So I think it would constitute constructive dismissal - its clearly very different to what they signed up for.

(sorry about replies in triplicate...latency issues)