The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Lincon Premier]

Really annoys me that this thread goes daft for a couple of days and then nothing happens. Just wish this second coming would go the same way as the first. The sooner this lot die the better.

If it's not Warburton's court case it's MA's and the courts seem to drag things out for no apparent reason.

Just get them tae feck asap.

[John Findlay]

So Warburton announces via Sky Sports he is going after Sevco through the courts to prove he did not resign as Sevco are claiming. Yet I couldn't find anything about this in the written Scottish media this morning. How strange. Well not really. Level 5 indulging in arm bending again.

[Mikey1874]

So Warburton announces via Sky Sports he is going after Sevco through the courts to prove he did not resign as Sevco are claiming. Yet I couldn't find anything about this in the written Scottish media this morning. How strange. Well not really. Level 5 indulging in arm bending again.

They've gone with the 'Warburton is a shit manager best forgotten' tack.

[DETTY29]

It's unbelievable isn't it?

 

He's gone from tactical genius and stick on next England manager to shit one trick pony in less than a year.

 

Our sports press quite frankly have no self respect from themselves.

They've gone with the 'Warburton is a shit manager best forgotten' tack.

[Unknown user]

An interesting aside from this is that the upcoming east midlands derby will be the fifth in a row with different managers on both sides

[VALDOS]

I definitely think Warburton has probably lessened his chances of winning in court by now actually turning up at Forrest.

[buzzbomb1958]

I definitely think Warburton has probably lessened his chances of winning in court by now actually turning up at Forrest.

Not at all sevco have no letter of resignation and actually constructively dismissed them warbs and co hold all the aces,Why would they settle for less than what they are owed,also its not as if sevco haven't got a track record for this

[kila]

I definitely think Warburton has probably lessened his chances of winning in court by now actually turning up at Forrest.

 

If someone was constructively dismissed, do you expect them to not find another job while a court case is ongoing? 

[buzzbomb1958]

just cos of that it doesn't stop you getting another job sevco did not complete the terms of the contract so are in the wrong,just because someone asks if they will stand in the way doesn't mean they have resigned sevco jumped the gun and you can't expect someone to sit in the house waiting for a court case to start ,they sill have to earn a living

[VALDOS]

If someone was constructively dismissed, do you expect them to not find another job while a court case is ongoing?

To go to the very job that the employer has suggested you resigned for? Yes I think thats going to provide them with ammunition.

[trotter]

To go to the very job that the employer has suggested you resigned for? Yes I think thats going to provide them with ammunition.

 

Utterly irrelevant unless Sevco have proof that he resigned. If they don't, then he can do whatever he wants. 

[kila]

To go to the very job that the employer has suggested you resigned for? Yes I think thats going to provide them with ammunition.

 

That's the key part in all this, and for the courts to determine

[buzzbomb1958]

To go to the very job that the employer has suggested you resigned for? Yes I think thats going to provide them with ammunition.

Thagt was not the job they asked about the Forrest job came after that

[Unknown user]

To go to the very job that the employer has suggested you resigned for? Yes I think thats going to provide them with ammunition.

They still can't prove Warburton resigned if he didn't resign. What he did after is irrelevant, and you can guarantee he'll have taken legal advice to make sure it doesn't affect his casr

[VALDOS]

Thagt was not the job they asked about the Forrest job came after that

They had already spoken to Forest hence the talks regarding compensation. Also Warburton and the Forest Chairman have given very different version of his recent employment in thw last few days.

[buzzbomb1958]

No they were sounded out by another club and they asked sevco if they would stand in their way,then the club in question went with the assistant I don't remember who the cub was maybe someone can enlighten us they still didn't resign yhough

[Unknown user]

They had already spoken to Forest hence the talks regarding compensation. Also Warburton and the Forest Chairman have given very different version of his recent employment in thw last few days.

But if he didn't resign it doesn't matter. You can't just say an employee's resigned because he's thinking of moving on.

[jambovambo]

Maybe Warbs said he was "resigned to moving on" and they misheard him. 

 

[graygo]

No they were sounded out by another club and they asked sevco if they would stand in their way,then the club in question went with the assistant I don't remember who the cub was maybe someone can enlighten us they still didn't resign yhough

 

Derby wasn't it?

[buzzbomb1958]

Derby wasn't it?

Yep that's who it was

[Heartsofgold]

?Sevco had stated in their press release that all 3 had resigned.  If that is so then the burden of proof lies with the employer to prove that written letters of resignation have been submitted and accepted.

 

The fact that all 3 of them deny resigning and are taking them to court suggests that they know that their former employers cannot meet this burden of proof.  Even if they had stated that they were going to resign, it would seem that Sevco jumped the gun before any written confirmation has been handed over.  Therefore, they (Sevco) are in Breach of Contract.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Heartsofgold

[Drewboy]

If someone was constructively dismissed, do you expect them to not find another job while a court case is ongoing?

I would assume that Warburton would claim unfair dismissal. Constructive dismissal usually results in the employee resigning because their job has become untenable.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Unknown user]

?Sevco had stated in their press release that all 3 had resigned. If that is so then the burden of proof lies with the employer to prove that written letters of resignation have been submitted and accepted.

 

The fact that all 3 of them deny resigning and are taking them to court suggests that they know that their former employers cannot meet this burden of proof. Even if they had stated that they were going to resign, it would seem that Sevco jumped the gun before any written confirmation has been handed over. Therefore, they (Sevco) are in Breach of Contract.

Resignation doesn't have to be in writing, although it will normally be confirmed in writing.

 

As I understand things it was the agent who was in talks with the club, so it'll come down to;

Did the agent have authority to resign on behalf of the three employees?

Did the agent actually offer resignation on behalf of the three employees?

 

If it comes down to He says, She says, they'll likely believe whichever party hasn't been branded a glib and shameless liar in a court of law.

 

They're screwed with this one unless there's something we don't know about

Edited March 17, 2017 by Smithee

[Harmonica]

Utterly irrelevant unless Sevco have proof that he resigned. If they don't, then he can do whatever he wants. 

Correct and I hope he rams it right up them.

[altyjambo]

The main effect of Warburton taking another job is that, if he wins, the compensation due from Rangers will be much less. Warburton has only really lost out on a couple of months wages due to his ability to find a new job. It's an employee's duty to mitigate their losses and he's done that.

[davieholt]

The main effect of Warburton taking another job is that, if he wins, the compensation due from Rangers will be much less. Warburton has only really lost out on a couple of months wages due to his ability to find a new job. It's an employee's duty to mitigate their losses and he's done that.

 

I don't believe this is the case. The breadman will have the same contractual entitlement whether he picks up another job right away or never works again.

[Jamboelite]

The main effect of Warburton taking another job is that, if he wins, the compensation due from Rangers will be much less. Warburton has only really lost out on a couple of months wages due to his ability to find a new job. It's an employee's duty to mitigate their losses and he's done that.

Compensation is not dictated by your new employment status its based on your contract with said employer you are taking to court.

 

Nothing is affected due to him taking employment elsewhere.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Jamboelite

[JamboJen]

The main effect of Warburton taking another job is that, if he wins, the compensation due from Rangers will be much less. Warburton has only really lost out on a couple of months wages due to his ability to find a new job. It's an employee's duty to mitigate their losses and he's done that.

Really don't think that's correct. The value of the remaining term of Warburton's Rangers contract doesn't change. Whether he had a week or two years left, Rangers can't just rip it up with no payment and then say, "oh well, you got another job anyway so you've not really missed out".

 

Legally that would put the likes of me and you at a complete disadvantage if we were the victims of constructive dismissal but were stuck in a catch 22 of whether we find a new job or go to court.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

The main effect of Warburton taking another job is that, if he wins, the compensation due from Rangers will be much less. Warburton has only really lost out on a couple of months wages due to his ability to find a new job. It's an employee's duty to mitigate their losses and he's done that.

 

When I took my ex-employer to court, I can not recall ever having to disclose what my current earnings were or if I were even employed and the amount of compensation awarded wasn't reduced just because I had found another job.  I think this is because legally you are entitled to X amount in due wages from your previous employer and that employer still had to pay what they were due to you as per your contract.

 

Look at it this way, if you get made redundant and walk into another job a week later, do you receive less redundancy money, of course not, you've just scored, the same happens here as far as I know.

 

This will cost Rangers lots of money. 

[John Findlay]

Crooks defended by crooks. A parcel of rogues indeed.

[The Future's Maroon]

You couldn't make this up [emoji1]

The barrister defending Rangers Ebt scheme has went bankrupt over tax debts days before the club?s case was called. Andrew Thornhill QC was declared bust after a petition by HMRC.https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/745730/footie-lawyer-who-defended-rangers-ebt-scheme-goes-bankrupt-over-hrmc-debt-days-before-ibrox-tax-case/

That is priceless, how ironic.

[Fire_At_The_Disco]

.

[Spellczech]

Wonder when the plants will start running stories questioning Warburton's CV?

[Sidsnot]

Wonder when the plants will start running stories questioning Warburton's CV?

Bill and Ben?

[Blackford Hearts]

The fun continues. Rangers chairman Dave King's South African company fined ?64,000 for stock exchange breach

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/rangers-chairman-dave-kings-south-10065696

[John Findlay]

The fun continues. Rangers chairman Dave King's South African company fined ?64,000 for stock exchange breach

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/rangers-chairman-dave-kings-south-10065696

The start of a concerted campaign to oust him permanently.

[buzzbomb1958]

The fun continues. Rangers chairman Dave King's South African company fined ?64,000 for stock exchange breach

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/rangers-chairman-dave-kings-south-10065696

Aye but he's a fit and proper person according to the GSFA couldn't make it up,born a crook will die a bigger crook

[JamboAl]

Aye but he's a fit and proper person according to the GSFA couldn't make it up,born a crook will die a bigger crook

But will the Record hound him day by day as they did with Vlad.  I have not put a question mark there as it's not really a question.

They are currently trending with the Cathro/Levein scenario which enables any scrutiny of the Lying King to slip somewhat under the radar.

[reaths17]

Aye but he's a fit and proper person according to the GSFA couldn't make it up,born a crook will die a bigger crook

they don't do dying, he will be relegated instead

[Unknown user]

they don't do dying, he will be relegated instead

The shell Dave King may die but some shyster will come along, buy the rights, and change his mate Kevin's name to Dave King. He'll be the same Dave King though, the shyster bought his history after all.

[Unknown user]

Aye but he's a fit and proper person according to the GSFA couldn't make it up,born a crook will die a bigger crook

Didn't it come out recently that he's not on the club board because he didn't pass the test, and instead is on the board of the holding company?

Could be wrong, but I feel like I've seen this recently

[Hagar the Horrible]

Its actualy Dave King the parent company that is the crook, Dave KIng the person is a good guy, who telsl the whole truth.  Its Dave King the parent company that has the warchest and ra deeds, and the concert party and the Glib title.  But you have got to feel sorry for Dave King the person, but at least he will be able to keep the Dave King birth Certificate, and his school history, and his Fit and Proper Person SFA prefect badge.

[Diadora Van Basten]

Barry assistant manager.

[buzzbomb1958]

As I did say before considering the great job he did at the bully wee Ibroke is bazzas holy grail,with Cashinas track record of not holding a job down for very long he will see this as an opportunity to get the job he covets even if he has to do the same as he did to Le guen

[...a bit disco]

 ?As difficult as this is, I have decided I can no longer carry on at the club.

 

?This has been on my mind for a couple of weeks now and I feel it?s in the best interests of all parties.

 

?But I want to make it clear my decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the current situation at Rangers. It was purely about myself and Clyde.?

 

Barry Ferguson, 26/2/17

[Footballfirst]

Update on the Sports Direct v Rangers case from the Record.

 

 

Rangers and Sports Direct hit the High Court in battle over merchandise deal

 

Lawyers for Mike Ashley and Dave King present their cases in London to determine how the case should proceed. 
Sports Direct and Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley is embroiled in a High Court fight with Rangers over a merchandise deal said to result in the Glasgow soccer giant getting about 7p of every ?1 spent.

 

Bosses at a company within the Sports Direct group say Rangers? directors wrongly terminated a deal through which branded products, including kits, were sold, and want damages.
Rangers? directors dispute his claim.

 

Deputy High Court Judge Richard Millett has been asked to decide how the litigation should proceed and is analysing evidence at a High Court hearing in London.

 

In May, Rangers? directors said they were going to rip up contracts held with a merchandise company, Rangers Retail, they ran with a Sports Direct firm.The deal had been agreed by former chief executive Charles Green . But chairman David King, who took control nearly two years ago, and other directors were unhappy with the arrangement.

 

William McCormick QC, who is leading Rangers? legal team, told Judge Millett that supporters were also upset. He said fans became angry after learning that the club only got around 7p of every ?1 spent and had staged a merchandise boycott. Mr McCormick said fans thought that Mr Ashley pocketed too much of their money. He said there was a widespread view that no ?self-respecting? Rangers? supporter wore a replica shirt.

 

?The involvement of Mike Ashley and Sports Direct in Rangers FC has been controversial with supporters since the outset,? he said in a written submission. ?Whether rightly or wrongly, the supporters see Mike Ashley?s primary goal as the making of money at the expense of on-field success.?

 

He added: ?The greatest anger is reserved for the manner in which the revenue generated by the club?s merchandise is divided. ?When it became known in late 2014 that only about 7% of revenue spent on merchandise accrued to (Rangers), certain groups of supporters began to call for a boycott on the basis that Mike Ashley and Sports Direct gained disproportionately from supporters? money.?

Edited March 22, 2017 by Footballfirst

[Lincon Premier]

William McCormick QC, who is leading Rangers? legal team, told Judge Millett that supporters were also upset.
He said fans became angry after learning that the club only got around 7p of every ?1 spent and had staged a merchandise boycott.
Mr McCormick said fans thought that Mr Ashley pocketed too much of their money.
He said there was a widespread view that no ?self-respecting? Rangers? supporter wore a replica shirt.
?The involvement of Mike Ashley and Sports Direct in Rangers FC has been controversial with supporters since the outset,? he said in a written submission.
?Whether rightly or wrongly, the supporters see Mike Ashley?s primary goal as the making of money at the expense of on-field success.?
He added: ?The greatest anger is reserved for the manner in which the revenue generated by the club?s merchandise is divided.
?When it became known in late 2014 that only about 7% of revenue spent on merchandise accrued to (Rangers), certain groups of supporters began to call for a boycott on the basis that Mike Ashley and Sports Direct gained disproportionately from supporters? money.?

 

 

WTF does it matter what the fans think. They had a contract and broke it. It matters not a jot in law, that the fans didn't like it, as it had nothing to do with the fans. A signed contract can't be broken unless both parties agree. If that is the best argument they can come up with then I can only assume they are fecked.

Edited March 22, 2017 by Lincon Premier

[Riccarton3]

There's been some great characters in this soap.

[buzzbomb1958]

More cash spunked away long may it continue

[...a bit disco]

William McCormick QC, who is leading Rangers? legal team, told Judge Millett that supporters were also upset.

He said fans became angry after learning that the club only got around 7p of every ?1 spent and had staged a merchandise boycott.

Mr McCormick said fans thought that Mr Ashley pocketed too much of their money.

He said there was a widespread view that no ?self-respecting? Rangers? supporter wore a replica shirt.

?The involvement of Mike Ashley and Sports Direct in Rangers FC has been controversial with supporters since the outset,? he said in a written submission.

?Whether rightly or wrongly, the supporters see Mike Ashley?s primary goal as the making of money at the expense of on-field success.?

He added: ?The greatest anger is reserved for the manner in which the revenue generated by the club?s merchandise is divided.

?When it became known in late 2014 that only about 7% of revenue spent on merchandise accrued to (Rangers), certain groups of supporters began to call for a boycott on the basis that Mike Ashley and Sports Direct gained disproportionately from supporters? money.?

 

 

WTF does it matter what the fans think. They had a contract and broke it. It matters not a jot in law, that the fans didn't like it, as it had nothing to do with the fans. A signed contract can't be broken unless both parties agree. If that is the best argument they can come up with then I can only assume they are fecked.

 

indeed.

 

"Wur fans ur angry an' thur no' happy wi' Ashley" isn't exactly much of a defence in legal terms as far as I'm aware.