McCabe and Rangers

[M Royds]

I'm only guessing but I think Wolfmanjack is closer than you are. Firstly, administrators aren't involved in liquidations. Secondly, you're looking at the old company (and the related insolvency practitioners) being the obstacle. The players aren't assets in a legal sense, they are employees. And thus on liquidation, aren't an asset that can be collected and then sold off to pay back creditors.

The obstacle is the new company, the newco. Who seem to still be arguing that the players should have transferred under TUPE, even though, almost all employment solicitors are in agreement that this isn't the case, as they lodged objections to the transfer, and thus didn't transfer. I think they are basing any case that they may have, on that the objection should have been made within 48hrs but wasn't, and so the players did in fact transfer.

As said, experts (I am definitely not one) have stated that regardless, the players still did transfer. However, this technicality may mean that Rangers have a case/cause of action, even if they don't have a winnable case. So, as has been suggested earlier, they can bluff/hardball. I'm sure all the clubs have legal advisors who can see through this, but due to the number of parties involved, and layers of bureaucracy, it at least slows down the transfers. And increases the chances of 'buying' clubs just thinking, f*ck it, we'll pay a small sum to be done with it.

Does this mean if the case is ruled against Rangers than clubs like Southampton can claim tranfers transfer funds back?

I hope so.

[Last_Great_Hope]

This is covered more than adequately in UK employment law - and Rangers or any football authority don't have a case - it will come under restraint of trade.

If the current guise of Rangers is a different company to the company which the players signed then they are under no obligation to switch their contracts across - its very clear in employment law and any test case would show that quickly and easily

I agree that it is a losing cause being fought by the SFA and Newco - but one thing a test case won't be is quick and easy! This will take some time to resolve fully one way or the other - us Lawyers like to take our time (and rack up the fees) in cases like this.

So how does TUPE fit into this business point of view?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TUPE just read.

TUPE is sooooo last month guys. The issue being fought over is whether cancelling a players contract by way of TUPE also cancels the players registration with that team, and therefore if a transfer fee for his registration can be commanded or if he is truly a free agent the same as if his contract had expired by the effluxion of time.

As Scram says - a player being held to ransome by a club over his registration is a clear act of restraint of trade which is on the core principles of the EU. When FIFA rule they will have no choice but to rule in favour of the players.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Last_Great_Hope

[George]

I think, though I'll check when I am back in the office, that TUPE disputes and a restraint of trade such as this fall under the initial jurisdiction of an Employment Tribunal. If McCabe submitted an ET1 last week then then it could be sorted in six weeks.

[Sonny]

Alright, just asking like. I couldn't give a rumble about Rangers so haven't kept up to date about any of it.

[Last_Great_Hope]

I think, though I'll check when I am back in the office, that TUPE disputes and a restraint of trade such as this fall under the initial jurisdiction of an Employment Tribunal. If McCabe submitted an ET1 last week then then it could be sorted in six weeks.

I don't think the issue here is the contract - it's the registration with the relevant National FA (and by extension, FIFA).

Rangers aren't disputing that the contracts have been terminated and the players are therefore free to join other clubs, just that the other clubs should be paying fees for this rather than being allowed to sign them as free agents.

[Animis]

TUPE was designed to protect the empoyee against redunancy/dismisal when companies transfer the business function directly related to the employee's role, to another employer. I would suggest that an employer, who's not now the employer as the existing employer has been liquidated, would stand no chance of seeking protection under TUPE law.