I mentioned the rejection of newco Rangers claim for compensation for breach of contract from the players who refused to accept a TUPE transfer from oldco to newco last summer. This was despite Mr Green taking a rosy view of proceedings before the decision was issued.
The reaction on the Rangers website was an appropriate one – stating the import of the decision, but that the claim would continue, with the relevant papers already having been filed.
I noticed that today’s blog by Mr Leggat provided one reaction from a Rangers perspective, which seems, from a cursory glance, to meet the approval of other fans of the Ibrox club.
For those who do not know, Mr Leggat is a respected journalist and author of many years’ standing, who now blogs on Rangers, and primarily on the injustices, iniquities and evils being inflicted upon his favoured team by all and sundry. His views might not be accepted by everyone, but they are rarely dull.
As background the SFA Arbitration Panel is made up of members from a list of willing participants from football, business and the law. It operates on a cab-rank principle – people get chosen in turn for cases, rather than being specifically selected, although conflicts of interest would disqualify a member from sitting on a Panel should that exist.
The Scottish football authorities came up with this as an idea to avoid the problems inherent in the previous system, and as pointed out by the late Paul McBride QC, where committees of SFA members would consider these matters. The SFA decided after hearing the criticism to establish an “arm’s length” system for these matters. Continue reading