Rangers Q&A: newco player contract transfers

[pete 2,521]

Rangers Q&A: newco player contract transfers

By Alasdair Lamont BBC Scotland

 

So far, four Rangers players have lodged formal objections to their contracts being transferred from the old Rangers to the 'newco' .

 

But any player who tries to force a move away could face legal action, newco chief executive Charles Green has warned.

 

Green will meet with PFA Scotland representatives on Monday to discuss the situation, with the union likely to argue the choice is a matter for players .

 

Here we try to explain the varying arguments this situation throws up and examine how it might end.

 

Q: Can players lawfully object to their contracts being transferred?

 

A: This is fundamental to the debate, with the key parties involved holding contrasting views. The players have been advised that under The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 or TUPE, they can transfer to the newco, but are not obliged to.

 

So, Steven Naismith, Steven Whittaker, Rhys McCabe and Sone Aluko, the first players to object, are exercising their right under those regulations.

 

Q: But doesn't the chief executive of the new Rangers, Charles Green, believe the transfers have already taken place as part of his purchase of the assets of the old Rangers?

 

A: Yes he does and in a statement issued on Saturday, Green said the clear legal advice they had received was that "players' purported objection is ineffective" because of that.

 

But TUPE regulations also state that an employer intending to transfer contracts must inform and consult employees' representatives of their intention and in this case, PFA Scotland will argue that did not happen.

 

Q: Is there an issue over players' registrations?

 

A: Yes, as if this issue needed further complications. The Scottish Football Association holds the registrations for all players and to move to a club outside of Scotland (as most, if not all, players who may decide to leave Rangers would likely do) an international transfer certificate (ITC) must be issued.

 

According to Fifa, who have been consulted by the SFA over this matter, it is for the SFA to "decide if the conditions are fulfilled for them to provide the ITC for any player, according to the relevant regulations (Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players)".

 

Only if there was a dispute (and this is highly likely to be the case) could Fifa be asked to mediate.

 

Q: Charles Green says they will take "whatever steps necessary to challenge what we regard as a breach of contract to protect the interests of our club" should players not transfer across. What are his chances of success in getting compensation or indeed preventing players from leaving?

 

A: Fifa's regulations state "a contract signed between a player and a club may be prematurely terminated by either party without consequences of any kind where there is just cause" but whether there has been just cause is examined on a case-by-case basis.

 

Andy Webster's ground-breaking case , resulting from his acrimonious move from Hearts to Wigan, has been cited as a possible precedent. But the reasons for the players' terminating their contracts are so different it is difficult to deduce much from Fifa's decision to order Webster to pay Hearts compensation.

 

Q: Is there a deadline by which Rangers players will have to inform the club of any objections?

Rangers are due to start training on Thursday

 

Rangers players are due to start training on Thursday

 

A: Technically no, but in practice this coming Thursday is a crucial day.

 

That is when the players have been asked to return to training and also the day they are due to receive their first monthly wage since the newco was formed.

 

Employment law specialists believe that if players were to turn up for work, or indeed accept their salary, that would weaken their case if they wished to object to the transfer at a later date. So it is highly likely that by Thursday at the latest, we will have a good idea of which players intend to transfer to new Rangers and which intend to leave.

 

Q: Aren't players and their agents just using this as an excuse to get out of their contracts so they can secure lucrative deals elsewhere?

 

A: That is one interpretation certainly. If the players are free agents, they might be able to command a bigger signing-on fee and better wages than they would under normal circumstances.

 

Rangers manager Ally McCoist said on Friday he was aware of agents touting the players around clubs. Views on this are very subjective, as the players can argue they did their bit for the club by agreeing to 75% wage cuts back in March and given the uncertainty over which league, if any, Rangers will be playing in this season, they are entitled to secure the best deal for themselves.

 

Q: But couldn't they transfer to the newco and then leave, which would at least earn the club some much-needed revenue?

 

A: Again, that's a possibility. Top players like Steven Davis negotiated clauses in their contracts that allowed them to leave for a fraction of their market value, but even the £1.6m Davis would command would be better than nothing for Charles Green's Rangers.

 

The issue for some players, though, is that they have received no communication from Green and with huge uncertainty still surrounding the new owners' financial wherewithal and their intentions for the club, players may be reluctant to see them benefit.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that Green stated in his prospectus for potential investors that one of the possible advantages of the newco option was a saving of up to £7m in salaries because of the reduced need to keep top players. That would suggest the transfer of contracts was simply to ensure a sell-on value for the club.

 

Did Green balls up by not communicating with the player's?

[Zappa 0]

Did Green balls up by not communicating with the player's?

 

It seems as though the players were informed that their contracts would be transferred, but not consulted about it. I don't think they were allowed/able to sit down and discuss the matter with Green until after their contracts had been transferred. If these points are correct, then yes, you could say Green made a big mistake.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

It seems as though the players were informed that their contracts would be transferred, but not consulted about it. I don't think they were allowed/able to sit down and discuss the matter with Green until after their contracts had been transferred. If these points are correct, then yes, you could say Green made a big mistake.

 

Were the contracts not going to transfer on the 1st July? Green had said he was going to have a sit down with the players on Thursday 28th June. But the players started announcing decisions on or around the 24th June.

 

Also under TUPE legislations do they not need to give you a 90 day consultation period? Having gone through a number of these recently myself it was always that or around that amount of time. Except the last time which was a month.

 

It seems though Green wanted to do it in 3 days not sure of the legalities in that.

[Zappa 0]

Were the contracts not going to transfer on the 1st July? Green had said he was going to have a sit down with the players on Thursday 28th June. But the players started announcing decisions on or around the 24th June.

 

Also under TUPE legislations do they not need to give you a 90 day consultation period? Having gone through a number of these recently myself it was always that or around that amount of time. Except the last time which was a month.

 

It seems though Green wanted to do it in 3 days not sure of the legalities in that.

 

I've never had any dealings with TUPE, but there certainly doesn't seem to have been even a one month consultation period, never mind 90 days given that the CVA wasn't rejected until 14th June.

 

The following was posted on 23rd June by Gersnet member mark_jer who's the dad of one of the U19 players:-

 

Letters have been sent to all the players, informing them that their contracts were transferred to the newco, at the same terms and conditions as before.

They were also told that should they need to speak to Mr Green, they could contact him.

So they have been informed, just not face to face as yet. However, this will happen on Thursday when they return for pre-season training.

Bear in mind that many of them would have been out of the country with family etc., which wouldn't help.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Zappa

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I've never had any dealings with TUPE, but there certainly doesn't seem to have been even a one month consultation period, never mind 90 days given that the CVA wasn't rejected until 14th June.

 

The following was posted on 23rd June by Gersnet member mark_jer who's the dad of one of the U19 players:-

 

Taken from http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=6908271

 

Although TUPE does not impose a specific time scale for consultation, they must be meaningful and allow sufficient time for the representatives to consider the proposals.

 

It also states:

 

An employment tribunal may award 'appropriate compensation' if an employer fails to provide the required information or to undertake meaningful consultation.

 

The failure of the transferor does not automatically transfer to the transferee. They are jointly and severally liable. In practice, this means that any award will be made against the employer who failed to meet its obligations.

 

I would say that there is a fair chance no meaningful consultation took place

Edited July 8, 2012 by Zappa

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Did Green balls up by not communicating with the player's?

 

its certainly the line the players are taking.

[Zappa 0]

I would say that there is a fair chance no meaningful consultation took place

 

Yes, it certainly seems that way and at first glance it appears to have been a massive mistake by Green that's cost the club millions of pounds in transfer fees within days of him getting the keys to the club.

 

At a second glance however, I can't help wondering whether it might have been a deliberate mistake because it doesn't sound as if Green would have been able to cover their wages if they had stayed. Those eight players leaving since the CVA was rejected has probably slashed about £7m a year off the wage bill.

[simplythebest 0]

Yes, it certainly seems that way and at first glance it appears to have been a massive mistake by Green that's cost the club millions of pounds in transfer fees within days of him getting the keys to the club.

 

At a second glance however, I can't help wondering whether it might have been a deliberate mistake because it doesn't sound as if Green would have been able to cover their wages if they had stayed. Those eight players leaving since the CVA was rejected has probably slashed about £7m a year off the wage bill.

Come on now, you can't seriously believe Green is to blame.

 

Even if you can point to a technicality, this was pure self interest by the players and they'd have done the same whatever or whoever.

[Zappa 0]

Come on now, you can't seriously believe Green is to blame.

 

Even if you can point to a technicality, this was pure self interest by the players and they'd have done the same whatever or whoever.

 

Players jumping on the opportunity to leave out of self interest doesn't take away from the fact that Green appears to have provided them with a cast iron legal case to jump ship by transferring their contracts without proper consultation.

 

The players may well have left either way, but I can't help wondering why Green didn't properly consult them and give them the opportunity to stay if we're playing in the 1st division in the coming season or leave if we're playing in the 3rd.

[der Berliner 4,173]

IMHO, if the clubs signing Lafferty, Naismith, and Davis had any decency, they would simply pay the small fee that was written in their contracts and be done with it. It's not that they couldn't afford it. A loss to us, but at least they acknowledge the circumstances and do not appear as leeches. I wonder how we would have done this - the Whyte era does not count.