Government Probes Rangers HMRC e-Petition – by Ecojon

Most readers will be well aware of the e-petition lodged by Rangers supporters condemning the recent HMRC investigation into the club’s income tax affairs and alleged information leaks from it.

The petition, not unexpectedly, has been well-supported by Rangers supporters with endorsement by Chris Graham and has jumped into 10th spot in the e-petition league with 31,952 signatures since launch on 22 November.

However, it is understood, that the Government Digital Service which operates the e-petition website will investigate the number of signatures on the Rangers e-petition emanating from single-use e-mail websites. If these represent a significant number of the total signatures then further action will be taken to retain the parliamentary integrity of the process.

So, what does it all mean?  Basically Rangers Media has been drumming up support for the e-petition which is to be expected and there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.

But at the head of the Rangers e-petition pinned thread it carries the following info:

http://mailinator.com/ provides an instant, disposable email.  When filling you the petition if you register the email as something like “mothersname@mailinator.com” – then visit http://mothersname.mailinator.com it will take you to that disposable inbox where you can access the confirmation email.

‘Therefore anyone who many not have an email account, or put off by having to confirm the emails – this offers a quick and handy solution.  I’m also unsure if the T&C’s of the e-petition allows you ‘sign’ on behalf of someone else, such as a friend or family member, but if it does…  Provided you know their address & postcode this would allow you to easily sign on behalf of someone else without needing access to their email inbox’.

Couched for those ‘who know the score’ it explains that by using mailinator.com you can cast a ‘vote’ for anyone including your own mother without their knowledge as long as you have their name, address and postcode.  They will never see the confirmation security-check email from the Government e-petition website which will be accessed and acknowledged by the perpetrator through the mailinator.com email address.

Comment on RM which says it all and not only shows the utter contempt for democracy at work but destroys the validity of the Rangers e-petition:   Posted 29 November 2012 – 03:48 PM

Signed again using a different email address… Great idea about a daily reminder

RM might not be the only Rangers fan site showing this advice and it may appear on other Rangers sites, blogs and social media. I feel sure that decent Rangers supporters will be appalled not only at the existence of this ‘mechanism’ but that a major Rangers fan site should advertise the shady ‘loophole’ in relation to what is an important issue for the democratic process which right-thinking Bears obviously fully support.

It could mean that the integrity of the whole Rangers e-petition is called into doubt depending on how many of these one-use email providers, like mailinator.com, are being used.

The Rangers e-petition, now that it has passed 10,000 signatures, is due a response from the responsible department: Her Majesty’s Treasury. E-petitions are next considered for debate by the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee if they pass the 100,000 signature threshold.

However, I am unclear whether the debate decision can be taken even after the 100,000 barrier is breached if the closing date for signatures is still open and the Rangers petition doesn’t close until 22 November 2013 which might, in hindsight, have been a mistake.

Irrespective of the end date there is another real barrier to debate in that if the subject of an e-petition is currently going through legal proceedings, it may be inappropriate for a debate to be held. In view of the private nature of the HMRC proceedings, emphasized in the Rangers e-petition it seems sensible to postpone public debate until ALL legal proceedings, including HMRC appeals have ended. Indeed, the recent demand for an investigation by David Murray could also delay matters.

I personally have puzzled over why David Murray would want any criminal proceedings into private issues which would be avidly reported from an open courtroom as opposed to the ‘secrecy’ of a tax tribunal. In view of some of the information which has already come from the FTT Decision Mr Murray might come to regret his demands IMHO although I suppose we have to accept his  judgement no matter how flaky his choice of Wee Craig as a suitable custodian appears to have been. He also decided on using the EBT mechanism when many other football clubs and businesses rejected going down that route.

As to the actual Rangers e-petition it is poorly drafted in general and inaccurate which will provide HMRC with ready ammunition if they so choose to use it. The petition wrongly states that HMRC have pursued Rangers for unpaid taxes for the last three years. The HMRC enquiry began in January 2004 – almost nine years ago.

We have the ‘red herring’ of whether the EBTs were included in the annual accounts – it adds nothing to the petition and actually could damage it if HMRC in answer lists the efforts made to hide documentation, delay the investigation and force a police raid to uncover side-letters.

The statement that the FTT Decision found Rangers ‘not liable’ is simply incorrect albeit it was a much reduced liability. But there was still tax liability and the petition will be judged against such glaring errors of fact. It also follows that if liability exists, as it does, then some ‘law’ or ‘tax regulation’ must have been broken or  there would be no liability.

As to the ‘meat’ of the e-petition regarding the leaks – I think it is very weak not to details the exact circumstances complained about and the information leaked as it provides no real starting point from which an HMRC response can be judged as there is no detailed complaint IMHO.

A wider look at e-petitions shows six which have broken the 100,000 signature barrier and are therefore before Rangers in the queue and other new ones might get in front before next November.  It should always be remembered that getting 100,000 signatures guarantees nothing except publicity as the Back Bench Business Committee decide which will be debated.

Two 100,000+ petitions received the committee’s seal of approval for debate although not in the House of Commons but in the Palace of Westminster where there is no vote. There is also some talk that the barrier will be raised to 150,000 signatures.

Indeed the whole future of e-petitions could be under threat with Cameron seemingly starting to think it’s another one of his brilliant ideas which has boomeranged, as reported here.

————————————–

The following are comments posted on RM which indicates that the integrity of the Rangers e-petition is being destroyed by idiots in their own support. Even if they reach the 100,000 target it will be discounted as tainted through cheating.

I have no idea whether similar is happening on other Rangers sites but having read RM I am frightened for the future of this country when people subvert Democracy for a football club. How have we managed to fall so low?

 ————————————————-

Posted 25 November 2012 – 12:08 PM

Worst comes to worst I’ll spend the last week of it creating email accounts and signing it 50,000 times.

 

Posted 25 November 2012 – 12:18 PM

Used old email accounts l forgot all about. :)

 

Posted 22 November 2012 – 11:25 PM

Signed with 5 different email addresses

 

Posted 23 November 2012 – 03:55 PM

Signed it for me and on behalf of 4 other family members using that mailinator site. Good idea that!

 

Posted 23 November 2012 – 01:40 PM

I live in Australia bud and I signed it no probs!! Or do you mean non British rangers fans??

 

Posted 23 November 2012 – 07:13 PM

My girl just signed it, she does not actually know yet. But i’ll have her click the email link soon

 

Posted 24 November 2012 – 08:38 AM

nacho_nacho_man, on 24 November 2012 – 12:23 AM, said:

Can anyone confirm if we can sign on someone’s behalf, provided their consent is given? I have various older Bears in the family who don’t use the ‘net but care just as much as the rest of our support.

 

go for it — how will they know

 

Posted 23 November 2012 – 10:58 PM

i signed myself and my daughter on one email

and wife and son on a different email

 

Posted 24 November 2012 – 10:56 AM

ive added 11 sigs so far and working on more

 

Posted 25 November 2012 – 03:05 AM

I feel it is important for people to know that two people can sign using the same email address. So if your Mrs/Hubby,Lover,Dug or Budgie havn’t signed it, get them to do so.As long as they are a UK citizen they can.

 

Posted 25 November 2012 – 02:15 PM

Done…but now going to sign again via other e-mail accounts

 

Posted 25 November 2012 – 04:34 PM

Is there an age limit on this? Could I sign for my 6 year old and my 3 year old (they actually have their own e-mail addresses due to their XBOX live accounts)?

 

Posted 25 November 2012 – 03:21 PM

Just signed it another 6 times 2 work colleagues, the mrs, uncle and 2 kids

 

Posted 26 November 2012 – 06:28 PM

start creating gmails and/or ymails for family members and friends. sign it with multiple email accounts, might take an hour out ur life but well worth it. sign it for every member of you household seperately and if you know ur friends post code do the same for them.

 

Posted 27 November 2012 – 05:24 PM

Just signed it 9 times with different mailinator accounts  Might just head back and sign it another 5 or 6 times ;)

 

Posted by Ecojon

———————————

Editor’s Note – An interesting precedent for a petition being undermined by “false” signatures comes from the 1848 Petition by the Chartists. The apparent over-inflation of the numbers allowed the government of the day to ignore a petition which it was accepted had just under 2 million legitimate subscriptions.

As chartists.net relates:-

At the start of 1848 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Communist Manifesto in London, advocating a European revolution. It was to be led by the workers of the countries most advanced towards capitalism. In the following months Paris, Berlin, Vienna and finally Italy erupted into revolution although it is debated how much effect the Communist Manifesto had on these events.

On 10 April 1848, Feargus O’Connor organised a mass meeting on Kennington Common, which would form a procession to present another petition to Parliament. The estimate of the number of attendees varies depending on the source (O’Connor estimated 300,000; the government, 15,000; The Sunday Observer suggested 50,000, which was more accurate). According to John Charlton the government was well aware that the Chartists had no intention of staging an uprising as they had established an extensive network of spies. However, they were very afraid that they could have been mis-informed or that a revolution would start spontaneously. To counter this threat they organised a very large show of force. 8,000 soldiers were in London that day, along with 150,000 special constables. In any case, the meeting was peaceful. However the military had threatened to intervene if the Chartists made any attempt to cross the Thames.

In a separate incident, rioters in Manchester attempted to storm the hated workhouse. A pitched battle resulted with Chartists fighting the police, eventually the mob was broken up, but rioters roamed the streets of Manchester for three days.

The original plan of the Chartists, if the petition was ignored, was to create a separate national assembly and press the Queen to dissolve parliament until the charter was introduced into law. However the Chartists were plagued with indecision, and the national assembly eventually dissolved itself, claiming lack of support.

The petition O’Connor presented to Parliament was claimed to have only 1,957,496 signatures – far short of the 5,706,000 he had stated and many of which were discovered to be forgeries (some of the false signatories included Queen Victoria, Mr Punch and ‘Pugnose’). However, O’Connor argued that many people were illiterate, and did not know how to write their own signatures, and so had to copy someone else’s. O’Connor has been accused of destroying the credibility of Chartism, but the movement continued for some years, with the final National Convention being held in 1858.

 

About these ads

370 Comments

Filed under Guest Posts, HMRC v Rangers, Politics, Rangers

370 responses to “Government Probes Rangers HMRC e-Petition – by Ecojon

  1. ecojon

    Rangers fans group urges boycott of cup tie against Dundee Utd

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-fans-group-urges-boycott-of-cup-tie-against-dundee-utd.1354566105

    Their bile runneth over – it would appear their vision of Blue Heaven is to be the only football team left in Scotland. You think they might worry about what is going to happen to Sports Direct Arena rather than trying to cripple other Scottish clubs.

    If chico doesn’t call on his supporters to drop their ban he’ll be acting contrary to the interests of Scottish Football.

    He already has one set of SFA charges to print in the Flotation Prospectus – wonder if he wants another lot?

    • Adam

      When it says “Rangers fans group” which one does it mean.

      There are various fans groups, some of which total less than 500.

      • ecojon

        @ Adam

        Stop bloody asking questions and use the link and find out!

        • Adam

          The article doesnt state which group though. Not from what i can see.

          • ecojon

            @ Adam

            Watch my lips: ‘The Rangers Supporters Assembly tonight urged fans to participate in a “full boycott”.’

            Wonder what a full boycott is?

            • Adam

              Watch my lips ????

              Have you lost it or something ?

              Ive read the article again and see no mention of the RSA. Apologies for asking a question i didnt know the answer to. :-(

            • ecojon

              @ Adam

              Have you been drinking tonight?

            • Adam

              No. Why ?

              The link you posted does not mention RSA. Not unless its behind a paywall that i cant access. This is all i can see on the link.

              “Rangers fans group urges boycott of cup tie against Dundee Utd”

              “Rangers face playing their William Hill Scottish Cup clash at Tannadice with a much-diminished away backing after one of their main supporters groups called for an organised boycott.

              The Ibrox club were today paired with Dundee United in the fifth round, the first occasion they have been drawn away against Clydesdale Bank Premier League opposition since they were relaunched as a new company and denied entry to the SPL.”

            • mick

              were were you adam you did not answer my question

            • ecojon

              @ Adam

              Lost what Adam – it isn’t behind a paywall and I have no idea how you can’t see it when I can see it. That’s why I asked if you had been drinking. In any case what makes you think I have lost anything?

            • Adam

              So ecojon, can you explain your references ? And strange phrasing “watch my lips” ??

            • I can help here – the Herald site let’s you view something like 5 articles for free over a certain time period before you get the paywall which only shows the first two paragraphs. Adam you should have seen the message below the snippet of the article

          • ecojon

            @ Adam

            Do you really not know what ‘watch my lips’ means? Which references would you like me to explain?

            • garrymc73

              @ moctical 12.25am

              you’re right, mocital, but it’s not a true pay wall – you just have to register your details with the website (which, of course, the Herald can use to generate advertising income)..

    • JohnBhoy

      Instead of seeking to contribute to the common weal, Rangers fans respond by calling for a boycott. They certainly know how to win friends and influence the Scottish game.

  2. mick

    @every1 when are we starting a multi fans group to stop this farce about reconstuction theres lots of talk on line and a think we have to make a stance at the sfa not to include sevco ogilvie will stop at nothing to get them in all views and opions welcome spl say no to sevco starts here

    • JohnBhoy

      Sounds a good idea mick. We can get the Hunette @Violence to spam Ogilvie with her rabid emails. Should have him capitulating in no time, begging to escape her tortuous linguistic gymnastics, peurile banter and neutral anti-Celtic jibes and balanced pro-Rangers arguments.

      • ecojon

        @ JohnBhoy

        FFS all Ogilvie did was take an EBT ah don’t think he warrants that kind of cruel and unnatural punishment – he would win on appeal at the European Court and in any case we couldnae get him extradited oota Hampden – naebody can get him oota there!

      • cam

        You are unravelling sir! Your mum would not be happy.Take a few days off,enjoy the Euro game and get your reasonable head back on.

  3. ecojon

    RANGERS FAN BOYCOTT DUNDEE UTD

    Apparently an additional reason for the boycott is: “It must also be remembered the disregard this club had for Rangers supporters when it unashamedly refused to offer refunds to supporters for a game abandoned due to a waterlogged pitch in 2009.’

    Now 2009 was oldco so that’s nothing to do with newco – ah silly me that terrible event in 2009 must be part of the club history. What did oldco stiff ordinary creditors for was it £40 million? How many millions did oldco Rangers stiff its shareholders and debenture holders for? Must have been tens of millions.

    Don’t see any newco Rangers fans boycotting oldco over that debt – ah that’s right they can’t because oldco is deid. Send for Bomber he’s the man to adjudicate on this one :)

  4. mick

    we are letting our guard down there about to rearange things when it does not need to be ,sfa and sfl and spl are about to shift the goal post we need a joint effort to stop it just like the say no to sevco all over agian you cant get caught cheating then next year get a leg up theres no blow tourch out there would melt there brass necks its well out of order

  5. mick

    @adam were were you for 6month my medic friends think its prison due to your agression and lack of basic know how on the subject matters
    you dident answer the question adam were were you

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      He was up the Amazon in a yellow submarine searching for overseas investors for Rangers but it’s all meant to be a mystery :)

    • Adam

      mick, accusing people of lacking basic anything is a humongous height of irony.

      I dont think anyone on here could accuse me of aggression and i had a spy at TSFM and see there were a number of supportive posts, contrary to your bigoted view.

      Have you worked out what players were “tubed over” yet ?

      And can you please stop using the H word. I find it highly offensive.

      • mick

        you still have not answered the question are you going to tell us were you were in jail adam

        • Maggie

          @mick
          “Humungous height of irony” Oh the humun….no I just can’t
          type that level of idiotic mangling of syntax….
          Must say mick,bit ironic of him to have a go at you re “tubed over”
          when he doesn’t know the difference between mute and moot
          and thinks veer is spelled vere ( which isn’t even a word )

          • mick

            hi maggie long time no text adams above us all or have i got stockholm syndrome with trying to keep him right with all the facts hes mad adam

          • Adam

            I reckon the most blinkered of people can see through the haze enough to understand that mis-spelling a word or 2 is common but having an O Level in incoherent ramblings and mis-spelling is less common.

            Especially when that person is trying to get someone else to believe they are a font of all knowledge on the subject of “tubed”

      • mick

        adam zero players tubed all contracts were rewrote as it was a new club get a grip and tell us all plz were were you for 6month its no big deal were were you

  6. mick

    vioence and cam and alex and were were you adam are all suffering from Egocentrism lol

  7. mick

    well were were you for 6month was it domestic abuse ? or vioence in town come on adam dont hold back were non judgmentail on here no matter what even on subs they get news so dont play the navy card am smarter than you think ave psychoanalised you and your past comments and its 99% hmp due to violence a had a medic confirm the agressional aspect of your rants to degree level mind it was ???so were were you tell us its no big deal

    • Adam

      You really should be careful with your inferred accusations mick.

      • mick

        why should i be careful adam is that a threat were were you for 6month we all want to know

        • Adam

          Not a threat at all. Im just saying you are throwing defamatory accusations about the place and given the current climate, you should be careful.

          As for where i was, if you werent spamming like a tool every night, you would have read a few times, where i was when people who can write a sentence, know the difference between “where” and “were” and realise that employees cannot be “tubed over” asked me.

      • mick

        inferred was this word used at your trial lol

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      Ah widnae say his rants are at degree level but considering he’s only done two he could improve but no sure the lodge will let him take his degree mind you :)

    • JohnBhoy

      He got 25 to life in Sing Sing for refusing to plead innocent to manslaughter of the English language. Told the Judge that he – the judge – was a bigot and a TD would prove his point. He’s on the run. Actually his fellow prisoners, including the guards, had a whip round to buy him a personal escape kit from amazon.com. Adam called them hypocrites.

    • Why is this worrying level of bullying being allowed on this site?

      This “Mick” poster is employing vile intimidation

      • Cheap Suit Charlie

        You might call it bullying but I, and I suspect, many others, see it as Adam getting all of the attention he so desperately craves, after all, he does keep engaging with his own condescending and insulting offerings.

  8. mick

    @ecojon my medic friend thinks hes been in jail for 6month after reading and phycoaniyising him via his texts they have a degree and good brian for it the medic was degree holder not adam

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      That’ll be the Life of Brian I take it :) Seriously Mick your pal sounds as though he works at Guantanamo wi a third degree in torture.

      If Adam doesn’t want to say where he was that’s up to him. It’s his personal life and all I can say is gawd knows what your medic pal would make of my intergalactic flights of fancy :)

      Some people who have the necesary skills can tell a lot about a person because of the ‘tells’ in what they write but there are very few people about with those skills. But at most you get a very limited profile and to psychoanalyse anyone you need to preferably be there with them although some indications can be had via video feed but most of the personal rappor and interaction is lost.

      So basically yir pal’s talking sh*te :)

  9. mick

    so adam there you have it you can tell a lot by peoples comments were were you just say

    • JohnBhoy

      Shit, I’m sure I just saw Adam’s photo flash up on the telly! “Do Not Approach This Man. He Is Dangerous.” I would recommend that we all back off VERY slowly.

  10. Adam

    lmao – mick, you dont realise the size of dis-service you do for the many, many decent Celtic fans out there.

    You are better suited to a football forum. Leave the big boy stuff to the adults.

    • mick

      right adam were were you we all want to know its no big deal you would love me to dissapear no way hosea am here till tesco you dont know the programme .defamatory accusations adam its blog your tripping out your tree here just say its no big deal were were you for 6month just say you are not navy material so dont try the service route my medic m8s have monitored you as dangerous lol and thats for real

    • mick

      Leave the big boy stuff to the adults.what big boy stuff is that adam ?

      were were you for 6month prison come on adam just say

  11. Adam

    Mick, did your “phycoaniyist” friend with the huge “brian” tell you “were you were” supposed to read up on RFC employees “tubing over” to newco ? :-)

    • mick

      there contracts died it was new contracts stupid were were you come on adam out with it sevco and the sfa were shot down by the unions for cheating the workers were were you

    • mick

      right adam were were you for 6 month its no big deal was it work related mail bags lol

    • Unfortunately Adam the angst ridden suffer from querulous paranoia sadly there is no known cure, it is better to humour them as it is kinder to those afflicted, they have my sympathy if nothing else.

      Perhaps you could exercise a little more empathy with regard to their affliction.

      • ecojon

        @ alex

        The Kraken awakes – quick gather up the children and hide!

      • mick

        so adam have we all to make up our own minds about the 6 month

        • Adam

          You can make up your own mind. Or you can go back a few nights and read when i discussed with others in a civil manner. Now….what about McCulloch. How can a 2 year contract signed in July 2012 be due to end in 2013 ? And why did he sign a 2 year extension to 2015 just 3 months after signing a 2 year deal to 2013, even although thats only 1 year ?

      • Ernesider

        Will someone please teach Alex a new word.

  12. mick

    this is my fav out the lot lol the cup the big cup they died chaseing lions lol

  13. Adam

    “adam zero players tubed all contracts were rewrote as it was a new club”
    :-)

    Comedy Gold. You should be on TV mick.

    Either that or you should bag yourself up and sell as top class manure. You would make a fortune.

    “tubed” LOL

    • mick

      prove it then adam smarty pants (Transfer of Employment) legislation in order to become free agents. sevco gave every1 new contracts while the msm tryed to con the players with lies that they had to frazer from the union but them right thou well done to mister wishart for showing true grit

  14. mick

    Just 13 players turned up for the first day of Rangers’ pre-season training as the Glasgow club continued to face an uncertain future. With Rangers soon to be liquidated to form a newco, they are expected to be forced to start the season in either the Scottish First or Third Division – and at least 10 players have objected to having their contracts transferred to Charles Green’s new club. Green has accused the players of opportunism, but the Life’s A Pitch team believes the players should be free to decide if they want to leave the club.

    transfered over via a new sevco contract how can a person get paid via a dead club wake up adam get real all this tupe talk is making we want to post the players walking away vid

    • Adam

      The players who stayed TUPE’d over. Their contracts with oldco transferred to newco.

      Under advice from the PFA, some players refused to do it though eventually, money was paid for players where a value had been pre-agreed with administrators in return for reduced wages from February to June.

      Thats right, TUPE. Not tubed.

      • mick

        adam your on the glue the night it was new contracts all round the club died your quoting from msm lies at time to con players read the players union statment silly

  15. Adam

    Here mick. Have a read at this blog. It will tell you on there if you read it that some players would TUPE across to newco. I hope you trust my source:

    http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/mr-green-is-wrong-players-who-object-to-joining-newco-rangers-arent-in-breach-of-contract/

    • mick

      @adam you said they had same contracts your tripping

    • mick

      there there adam your wrong and your texts proves it its ok to get things wrong

      mick

      December 4, 2012 at 12:52 am

      Adam

      December 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm

      Wrong again. Deary me. The contracts did not die.
      ———————————————————————-
      adam the contracts died and via tube rules they got new 1s it varyed some got less some got more tube is to protect employees from companys that pheniox you really have made a clown of your self tonight .everything that was rfc oldco died even the history would you like to say sorry to me as you always say this when your getting it wrong you drum up pure drithel and present it as facts

  16. Adam

    Some quotes for you:

    “Whilst the worker automatically becomes an employee of the new company, he is not forced to do so”

    “The only thing the player would need to do would be to send the SPL written notice that the contract was terminated and 14 days later the registration of the player is terminated.”

    “Effectively therefore “Rangers” could lose the entire playing staff, or at least those who would be of interest as free agents, for nothing.”

    “Now, if one is a member of the office staff, for example, or a groundsman, or even a youth team player, continuity of employment is a good thing.”

    “TUPE rules protect the employee by limiting the ways in which the new employer can vary the contract. TUPE rules do not prevent the employee negotiating a better deal, or a new contract with the new boss!”

    “There may well be Rangers players loyal enough to the team to put Rangers before their personal financial interests.”

    A simple sorry will suffice mick.

    • mick

      adam it was new contracts all round you dont grasp basic business very well do you a wont call you daft tupe rules are there so new companys employing old company employees dont get ripped of at point of new contract that is when they leave the dead club and join the new 1 your glued up the night adam it says it in your text what a have said for 30 mins your wrong agian adam your makeing a clown of your self all night still no answer to were you were

      • Adam

        What does TUPE mean legally?

        Employees who are employed in the undertaking which is being transferred have their employment transferred to the new employer. Employees can refuse to transfer (or “opt-out”), but depending on the circumstances of the case, they can lose valuable legal rights if they do.

        TUPE states that “all the transferor’s rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with the transferring employees’ contracts of employment are transferred to the transferee”. This all-embracing concept encompasses rights under the contract of employment, statutory rights and continuity of employment and includes employees’ rights to bring a claim against their employer for unfair dismissal, redundancy or discrimination, unpaid wages, bonuses or holidays and personal injury claims etc.

        Employees therefore have the legal right to transfer to the new employer on their existing terms and conditions of employment and with all their existing employment rights and liabilities intact (although there are special provisions dealing with old age pensions under occupational pension schemes). Effectively, the new employer steps into the shoes of the old employer and it is as though the employee’s contract of employment was always made with the new employer.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18592410

    • mick

      “TUPE rules protect the employee by limiting the ways in which the new employer can vary the contract. TUPE rules do not prevent the employee negotiating a better deal, or a new contract with the new boss!”

      Adam

      December 4, 2012 at 12:17 am

      Some quotes for you: or a new contract with the new boss!”
      vary the contract. as they are new contracts adam ffs get real

      • Adam

        Thats right though, It doesnt prevent it. It doesnt also mean its mandatory.

        Lets get one thing straight though. Any player who was in a 2,3 or 4 year contract with Rangers oldco and is still there at the moment, TUPE’d over in the summer and the contracts they had with Rangers oldco are the same as they are now.

        The only exceptions to this are the ones who have since left, or negotiated an extension post the sale.

        Its disappointing that someone like ecojon who could kill your argument stone dead in a nano second wont play ball. Perhaps he will in the morning.

    • Cheap Suit Charlie

      Adam
      What you have produced so far to prove your point actually proves the sum total of zero. Don’t get me wrong, I suspect you’re probably right in that some players did TUPE over but Mick asked you to prove it. All you’ve come back with is some generalities about how TUPE should work. Do you have any specific info on Rangers players that confirms your stance?

      • mick

        @the start he said oldco contract were still live thats wrong the are nil and void and the staff have new sevco 1s hes in denial with his head in the sand sxxtting sand castles excuse the lingo lol

        • Cheap Suit Charlie

          To be honest Mick I really don’t know who is right on this but from my reading of TUPE I would hazard a guess that it’s rights and liabilities that transfer and i would imagine that the players would then sign new contracts with the new company. Could be wrong of course and am open to being corrected.

          • Cheap Suit Charlie

            And that being the case, transferred liabilities and all, I can see why any players with EBT’s would refuse to TUPE :-)

            • mick

              tony higgens and all the union men put the players right and paul was first to comment on it online jabba and co were well up for conning the players to tube over telling lies that they would be liabile and so on

            • mick

              a never thought of liabilities at the time but come to mention it thats a good point for going

            • Cheap Suit Charlie

              That does make sense mick and you may very well be right. Adam does appear to be very confident that his position is the one based on fact, perhaps he can clarify.

          • mick

            @iCheap Suit Charlie ts new contracts all round similiar to old but with ajustments thats tube rules rfc died the contracts have new headings sevco or the rfc svco or what ever they are calling them selfs to avoid being pulled up for phenioxing adams mad hes been away for 6month a did ask were but he would not answer its new contracts with sevco headed paper with similiar terms of contract as old 1 thats what made it new contract and thats why there was a walk away as rfc broke the original deal with not fullfilling there side of the contract with going into liquidation the msm tryed to cover those rules and con players but frazer wishart of the union put them right tube

          • @CSC

            Your hazarded guess is spot on: rights & liabilities, conditions of employment etc transfer over, but in the form of a new contract with the new company, honouring the above.

      • Adam

        “Dont get me wrong, I suspect you’re probably right in some players did TUPE over but Mick asked you to prove it”

        Firstly, i dont think Mick asked me to prove it. All Mick did was spam the board with incoherent nonsense about being “deid” Im sure you know that beyond a video of a player actually saying “My contract was TUPE’d to newco” mick wont accept any evidence.

        All we can do in this instance, for those of us who actually understand how TUPE works, is be reasonable, apply the theory of occam’s razor and accept that the players who transferred from oldco to newco were subject to the rules of TUPE.

        The ones who left, as pointed out by Paul, Tony Higgins and Fraser Wishart to varying degrees used TUPE rules as well to allow them to leave.

        I dont have a video to prove it…………………..but i think the more reasonable people on here know the truth and their absence from commenting might only be to save micks embarrassment of his knowledge on a process that he doesnt even know the name of.

        McCulloch, Alexander, Little, Hutton, McKay et all were “tubed” across from oldco to newco.

        • mick

          a know how tube works adam it set in place to give new contracts when companys fold and do a pheniox its there to protect the worker and get the new contracts similiar to old 1s its not rock sience

  17. mick

    my deepest sympothys to your team adam heres the funeral in case you missed it inside

  18. mick

    Adam

    December 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    Wrong again. Deary me. The contracts did not die.
    ———————————————————————-
    adam the contracts died and via tube rules they got new 1s it varyed some got less some got more tube is to protect employees from companys that pheniox you really have made a clown of your self tonight .everything that was rfc oldco died even the history would you like to say sorry to me as you always say this when your getting it wrong you drum up pure drithel and present it as facts

    • Adam

      Oh oh…..i sense a bit of reverse gear hear from Le Mick.

      You said “adam zero players tubed” I said you were wrong.

      NOW you are saying

      “via tube rules they got new”

      Which one is it ?

      Did the players TUPE across or not?

      Were all oldco contracts renegotiated, redrawn and new terms applied to them all or not ?

      Or are you now saying that the old contracts are still the same as they were TUPE’d over but Charles Green has wrote them out on new headed paper ?

      If the latter, then perhaps Cheap Suit Charlie will ask for some evidence of this :-)

      • mick

        adam it was new contracts all round there is no rfc contracts anymore its sevco your twisting things to make yourself look good you banged on for 24 hours about it

  19. mick

    the man that cant string a sentance together has proved you wrong adam so it says alot about your own communication skills if you know what a mean

  20. mick

    Adam

    December 3, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    If they dies, can you explain how Lee McCulloch, in October, signed a 2 year extension to his 2 year contract that was due to end in 2013.

    You are 100% wrong.

    Perhaps ecojon could step in and confirm, or perhaps he will stay out to save your utter humiliating embarrassment.

    lets break down adams comment

    If they dies, can you explain how Lee McCulloch, in October, signed a 2 year extension to his 2 year contract that was due to end in 2013.

    hatchet lmc or jig he signed a new contract after sevco signed him up on his old contract that was nil and void sevco gave him a extention to his sevco contract not the dead club 1 .

    You are 100% wrong.

    wit a buzz you are adam you are a100percent wrong

    Adam

    December 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    Wrong again. Deary me. The contracts did not die.

    the contracts did die and were replaced by sevco

    Perhaps ecojon could step in and confirm, or perhaps he will stay out to save your utter humiliating embarrassment.

    it was paul last night now eco tonight can you do debates 1 on 1 why you always trying to drag other commentors in to it
    your utter humiliating embarrassment.

    your the embarrassment here adam not me

    so there there adam dont worry you can enjoy the dead clubs tribute to rfc sevco 8 companys

  21. JimBhoy

    Wow just caught up on all that TUPE sh!t, I’ll never get that 10 mins of my life back,,, Please refer back to various posts on this site on the whole legalities of TUPE, it is something I have actually been through and is effectively a full transfer of the same or similar contract benefits between two companies inc continuation of service for the employee (the latter not something that would affect a footballer on a fixed term contract). For oldco rangers, most players left legally although some clubs paid a nominal fee (God knows why) and a few stayed transferring to newco via TUPE on a new contract (same or similar benefits) with a new company.

    For chico NOT to know TUPE would come into effect in liquidation was bollox, he gambled on bullying the SFA and players to see if he could get some cash, he got very litle. However, the positive was, it shrunk the wage bill dramatically and the saving grace (ironically) when the dust settled was that rangers had to start in Div4, he played that as if a betrayal (and remember most rangers fans wanted to restart there) but at the end of the day not being able to purchase players it probably saved the team more humiliating defeats against stronger teams I would speculate.

    All this contract, tupe, financial, hmrc stuff is nonsense, I have said many times rangers are 3 footballing defeats away from a proper crisis. The fans have taken a belly load of the above but it’s football that matters at the end of the day.

    • Adam

      “a few stayed transferring to newco via TUPE”

      So they did TUPE across then ? Its just that mick said “zero players tubed”

  22. JohnBhoy

    @Adam,

    After McCulloch transferred over, The Rangers announced an ‘extension’ to his contract. He was on a fixed-term contract before and that was replaced by a new fixed-term contract (nothing to do with TUPE). He has a new contract of employment. Interestingly, under The Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable) Treatment Regulations 2002, if he has been with his employer for 4 or more years then he is entitled to a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ i.e a permanent contract, unless Charlie can produce objective justification for not doing so. His time with Rangers counts towards his length of service. Could be a good test case if he choose to take his employer to an Employment Tribunal.

    Liabilities are transferred. Any actual or potential claims made against the old company, the transferor, can be brought against the new company, the transferee, unless the transferee can obtain an indemnity from the transferor against any potential liabilities.

    • Adam

      McCulloch had a 2 year contract from 2011 to 2013 with oldco.

      In July, McCulloch TUPE over to newco. Same contract terms. Same wages. Same everything.

      In October, he signed a 2 year extension, not sure of the terms, but he is now signed to the club until 2015.

      • JohnBhoy

        Adam, we don’t know if it was the “same everything”. Charlie may have altered the contracts with the agreement of the employees. However, you have just confirmed that in McCulloch’s case he was offered and accepted a new contract of employment AFTER the transfer, thus he agreed to set aside his old contract of employment and replace it with a new contract of employment. The terms and conditions may the same, though I suspect not, but he definitely has a new contract of employment, even though football managers and players loosely refer to it as an “extension”.

        • Adam

          The extension was 3 months after he had been playing games and receiving wages though.

          In your opinion, did McCulloch TUPE from oldco to newco.

          A yes or no will suffice. And happy to accept your answer from either of your logins. :-)

    • JohnBhoy

      JohnBhoy, hate to be pedantic but linguistic standards must be maintained: “…If he chooses to take…” or “… If he chose to take…” but not “… If he choose to take…”

  23. ecojon

    @ Adam & Mick

    I hould make it clear that when I ‘retired’ last night I was going to bed to do better things than discuss the tubing of Rangers players. IMHO there are few football players who need any assistance in being a Tube or appearing on that medium.

    So to Tupe and like the two of you I am not legally qualified and might well be talking p*sh.

    However as my knowledge of The Law is limited and I have been asked my opinion – not that I require an invitation you understand – here we go and possibly Paul may add his later.

    I don’t know this for a fact but I would assume that the SFA has a standard form of football players contract used as a model between the employer and the players rep be that legal or union.

    One of the important things about a contract is that it must identify the parties involved: employee and employer.

    So we start off with Oldco which goes into administration and administrators are appointed and Oldco becomes Oldco(IA). Variou things can happen at that stage re the employment of staff but we, for this discussion, can ignore that factor including chico’s belief that he had slave trader rights to Oldco employees.

    The mystery owners of Ibrox – who remain a mystery to this day – then form a Newco company and former employees of Oldco are, imply put, entitled to the protection of employment legislation including the TUPE mechanism which by and large stipulates their terms and conditions remain the same with the NEW employer. They also have the right to walk-away from Oldco(IA) and Newco at that point.

    Those who are ‘tubed’ or as I have often heard used before ‘tuped’ but pronounced as if it was the hairpiece (wonder if that’s another French Connection?) can have the same terms and condistions but their contract with Newco is a NEW contract because the legal persona of the employer has changed from Oldco to Newco.

    I take a guess at this one but I would asume as I mentioned earlier that a ‘model’ contract is used for all players which refers to – HOLD YOUR BREATH – a side letter which outlines the actual details of each players individual arrangements with their employer. To prevent any confusion this side letter is a different side letter from the other side letter which didn’t seem to exist until uncovered in a police raid during Murray Group’s co-operation with the HMRC investigation into aggresive tax avoidance.

    However, back to more mundane matters :)

    Another commonsense way of looking at this is if the contracts of employment remained the same with the same employer right through Oldco and Oldco (IA) then now that Oldco (IA) is actually Oldco (IL) does that means that Rangers players now have a second opportunity to Tupe. Of course not because their employer wa changed to Newco in June this year.

    Agreed variations in the terms and conditions of a contract of employment are unlikely to void that contract and nothing I have heard about extensions to existing Newco contracts would seem to fall into that category as it appears to suit both parties to it.

    And just to reiterate: The parties are Newco and Joe Bloggs player and not Oldco and Joe Bloggs because Oldco is legally deid although I accept that we are having difficulty in tracing the lair certificate but Bomber is doing aerial topographic surveys as we speak. In fact he has just radioed in to say there are a squad of painters on the roofs of the old Ibrox stadium.

    He wonders what they are doing and I haven’t the heart to tell him in case he goes all kamikaze :(

    So I award this particulat contest to the Pieman in the green corner well maybe not but it can’t be the blue one either :)

    • Adam

      So in your informed opinion ecojon, and a simple yes or no to both questions will suffice.

      1. Do you believe the existing players TUPE’d over to newco ?

      2. Do you believe the vast majority of them will have been on the exact same contract terms as when they were with oldco ?

  24. Adam

    I should also add for clarity that when you TUPE from one company to another, there is no need for any new contract to be signed or given to the employees. The old contract is deemed as sufficient and having been part of many TUPE processes, I can think of loads of occasions where it was a seamless transfer for all employees who continued to be paid the contractual wages they had on the date it was due without getting a new contract.

    • ecojon

      @ Adam

      Basically Tupe Regulations provide employment rights to employees when their employer changes as a result of a transfer of an undertaking but you seem intent on ignoring that the actual employer changes. No doubt you have a reason for this but your reasoning is faulty.

      If the old employer’s name stayed on the employment contract of a transferred worker and an employment issue arose – which had nothing to do with the actual transfer of undertaking – then who would the employer be? Would it be the former company, possibly in liquidation, or the new company? You don’t need any legal knowledge to apply commonsense so it would be the new company.

      Obviously many employees don’t have a written contract of employment but a verbal one which may be based on custom & practice. But the wage slip issued would be in the name of the new employer not the old defunct one.

      Also most employees are legally entitled to a Written Statement of the main terms and conditions of employment within two calendar months of starting work and I believe, but can’t state for a fact, that a tuped employee would probably have their unchanged contract reissued within that time with their new employer’s name on it.

      I see you have been involved in ‘many TUPE processes’ and ‘loads of occasions’ when workers had their employers switched. You must be helluva unlucky in picking employers Adam or maybe you are part of the mechanism of administration or liquidation for operating Tupe on the occasions workers are transferred?

  25. ecojon

    @ Adam

    I can never really make my mind up whether you are a twerp or an idiot or just a spoiled-child who was always allowed to get their own way.

    I laughed at your diktat: ‘a simple yes or no to both questions will suffice’. Adam you do not control the rules of debate on this blog and you cannot pre-determine how any poster will answer your question.

    I would actually have some respect for you if you took my post – you asked for it after all to vindicate your position but appear to have gone huffy when I awarded the gong to mick – and actually went through it saying what you agree and disagree with. We could then have further discussion in terms of the areas of disagreement to see whether they can be resolved.

    The difference between us Adam is I do not require VICTORY in debate but rather get my pleasure from finding resolution and agreement and if that is impossible then accepting that a point of principle has been reached which will not alter no matter what discussion takes place.

    I may or may not agree with that point but if it is honestly advanced and held then I recognise its importance to an individual just as I do with certain principled positions I hold.

    So let’s look at your two questions. 1) I am unable to answer that question as I have never had sight of their contracts of employment. It is possible that they entered into new contracts with Newco which were not subject to Tupe but I would suspect that is unlikely to be the case even taking into account the peculiarities which appear to abound generally in the contracts of football players.

    2) Again that question is impossible to answer as I have not seen their contracts of employment.

    I would add that sometimes supposition without any factual basis might be acceptable but when dealing with something as legally precise and potentially important a someone’s contract of employment then I doubt if it is useful and ‘informed’ media opinion is likely to be based on hot air with a nuance of succulent lamb.

    The only thing that might be useful to deliberate was chico’s squeals that the Oldco players were all his as he had bought them as an asset. I assume as he apparently believed that he owned them body & soul then they could no longer have ‘belonged’ to Oldco or Oldco (IA) and had been unilaterally switched to his ‘legal’ ownership without their knowledge or agreement.

    However, it is unclear whether – in chico’s mind – they formed part of the assets of sevco which became Newco. It is also unclear given that chico appears to have decided to ignore employment legislation and Tupe what terms & conditions he would have imposed on his ‘assets’.

    In the event, not surprisingly, most players walked leaving a rump behind that no one wanted or who had genuine personal or family reasons for staying in Glasgow/Scotland.

    Btw I apologise most profusely for being unable to meet the two word restriction which you imposed on my answer :)

  26. Adam

    Im not dictating anything. I was asking you to answer a few simple questions using your informed opinion.

    Im sure if you are familiar with the TUPE process, and you do seem quite well versed in it, then you would be aware that new contracts are not necessary.

    Can you at least agree with me on that point ?

    As for handing the gong to mick……cant say i read your reply and worked that one out. I think you believe the players TUPE’d over. If thats the case, then thats all i have said all along. Mick says zero “tubed” over.

    • ecojon

      @ Adam

      You are now becoming tiresome the way a child does who always wants to get their way and if you don’t start behaving then Santa ain’t going to call.

      In view of all of the thing that were aid mainly between yourself and mick last night and this morning then I will not be accepting a couple of word summation on what was said or meant.

      You have now turned into a mindreader who thinks they know what I ‘believe’ – most people that know me well are well aware that even my left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. So it is highly unusual for anyone to be able to ‘read’ me.

      That aside your crass statement that you think I believe that players Tuped over – do you ever actually read anything that people state to you?

      You initially asked me: 1. Do you believe the existing players TUPE’d over to newco?

      I responded: 1) I am unable to answer that question as I have never had sight of their contracts of employment. It is possible that they entered into new contracts with Newco which were not subject to Tupe but I would suspect that is unlikely to be the case even taking into account the peculiarities which appear to abound generally in the contracts of football players.

      So you have decided to ignore my answer because it doesn’t suit your purpose – whatever that is – and indulge in a bit of mindreading to acertain The Truth as believed by you. There is a world of difference between ‘suspecting’ and ‘believing’ for most rational individuals but not so with yourself it would appear.

      Let me ask you Adam – Have you seen the players’ contracts of employment? I am tempted to say a simple YES or NO would suffice but use as many words as you need to confuse the issue :)

      • Adam

        The players and employees of Rangers Football Club that still remain working for newco TUPE’d across. I can assure you of that.

        You wont believe me, much the same as people are still arguing with me that Leeds were not liquidated and that a CVA was successful.

        We could go round and round though.

        • ecojon

          @ Adam

          We don’t need to go round and round. Just answer the imple question: Let me ask you Adam – Have you seen the players’ contracts of employment?

          You state: ‘The players and employees of Rangers Football Club that still remain working for newco TUPE’d across. I can assure you of that’.

          Can you provide a reliable citation for your assertion? With regard to your ‘assurance’ I’m afraid that you have admitted to too many errors of fact on previous occasions and apologised for them – so I am unable to accept your assurance at face value.

    • mick

      thats lies adam you said it was same contract how can it be the same if its a new set up after liquidation you said it was original contracts they had you got it wrong and you have banged on for 24 hours about it

      Adam

      December 3, 2012 at 11:49 pm

      Wrong again. Deary me. The contracts did not die.
      yes they did they died and the staff got new 1 s sevco 1s

  27. Gortnamona

    What an empty life I have. Reduced of a morning to reading this boring repetitive shite.

  28. mick

    adam you stated that the contracts were the same there not its a new club sevco all rfc oldco contracts died when green took over your trying to twist it all

    • Adam

      im not twisting anything. you said “zero players tubed” I said you were wrong.

      The contracts that existed under the oldco are still in place for all employees of Rangers, other than a few people who have since re-negotiated. Nobody has had to sign a single thing if they didnt want to, because legally, the old contracts are enforceable.

      • Cheap Suit Charlie

        You went a little further then saying he was wrong though, you stated he was 100% wrong, you were then asked about a dozen times if you could back that claim up. Can you? I understand that you don’t do direct answers to direct questions but maybe you could give it a try. I will also accept a straight yes or no.

        • Adam

          He is 100% wrong. He said the zero players tubed across and that they all got new contracts. I said they did TUPE across and they didnt all get new contracts. You ask me to prove this but you are asking the wrong person. It was mick that made the claim. He should be able to back his claim up with evidence of the new contracts for all players.

          Now……i hope you understand that I cannot possibly prove that someone DIDNT get a new contract, whereas its completely possible to prove someone DID get a new contract.

          Its the same as i cannot possibly prove that you DIDNT win something in the National Lottery on Saturday, whereas its completely possible to prove someone DID win something by producing a winning ticket.

          One had potential physical evidence. The other doesnt.

          • Cheap Suit Charlie

            That was a rather long winded way to say no, I can see why ecojon finds you so exasperating.
            Are you for real when you say you are the wrong person to ask if you can back up YOUR claim that “they did TUPE across and they didnt all get new contracts”? You also told ecojon that this was “assured”. They’re not micks claims, they’re yours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s