Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.

[Scotty CTA]

They were sacked on Friday night.

[EddardStark]

My guess is a settlement will be reached out of court. Secondly Rangers will assess Murty after Sunday's game and if we win we may go for him as an interim(and cheaper) appointment until end of the season. Murty is a coach first and manager second and senior players will have to step up to assist on and off the pitch. Murty proved he was not scared to make key subsitutions in the game against Morton so lets see how he gets on this week.

Edited February 16, 2017 by EddardStark

[macy37]

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

They were sacked on Friday night.

But they resigned.

[Parklife]

1 hour ago, EddardStark said:

Murty proved he was not scared to make key subsitutions in the game against Morton 

What do you mean by that? I didn't see any of the game. 

[RenfrewBlue]

12 minutes ago, Parklife said:

What do you mean by that? I didn't see any of the game. 

I didn't see the game either but speaking to a friend who was at it, they said he made changes and also adjusted the formation to 4-4-2 during the second half. 

And all of the subs didn't happen at the 60th minute either. 

We also crossed some corners into Mortons box. 

It sounded like a whole new world. 

[RenfrewBlue]

16 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Are you trying to make some sort of tenuous link between me wanting The Rangers to lose every game they play to that being unChristian?

It's not tenuous, it's obvious. But at least you're aware of your unchristian nature. That's a start. 

[vanderark14]

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/02/13/the-duopoly-myth/

100% spot on, Scotland doesn't need a strong Rangers. It needs a proper competitive league

[phart]

2 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

It's not tenuous, it's obvious. But at least you're aware of your unchristian nature. That's a start. 

If we're going to bring "unchristian" into a debate about football, then the Christian Abrahamic god wrote via moses that he hates...  looking at the list, not looking good for the heathens at Ibrox.

There are dsix things that the Lord hates,

dseven that are an abomination to him:

17  ehaughty eyes, fa lying tongue,

and gelbows that shed innocent blood,

18  ha heart that devises wicked plans,

ifeet that make haste to run to evil,

19  ja false witness who kbreathes out lies,

and one who asows discord among brothers.

 

 

[Scotty CTA]

I see that you are going on without me...

8 hours ago, RenfrewBlue said:

It's not tenuous, it's obvious. But at least you're aware of your unchristian nature. That's a start. 

I'm as flawed as the next person. (That was never an argument.) I am better than no one.

6 hours ago, phart said:

If we're going to bring "unchristian" into a debate about football, then the Christian Abrahamic god wrote via moses that he hates...  looking at the list, not looking good for the heathens at Ibrox.

There are dsix things that the Lord hates,

dseven that are an abomination to him:

17  ehaughty eyes, fa lying tongue,

and gelbows that shed innocent blood,

18  ha heart that devises wicked plans,

ifeet that make haste to run to evil,

19  ja false witness who kbreathes out lies,

and one who asows discord among brothers.

God pointing out that there is such a thing as 'righteous hatred'. 

(Or in other words... It's 'good' to hate evil.)

[Guest BlueGaz]

22 hours ago, ShedTA said:

theres an element of truth say, in that a verbal acceptance of a job / role is considered legally binding but in practice that's shite. Certainly as far as contract engagement goes, without a written acceptance the contract is worthless.got to be in writing.

Not so sure Shed, a lot would depend on whether this is employment law or limited company status law?  What if Warburton Limited is providing services to The Rangers?  And of course there is the matter of what the agent has said / agreed etc.

[RenfrewBlue]

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

I see that you are going on without me...

I'm as flawed as the next person. (That was never an argument.) I am better than no one.

God pointing out that there is such a thing as 'righteous hatred'. 

(Or in other words... It's 'good' to hate evil.)

So Rangers are evil then? 

Does that make me evil too as I'm a supporter? 

I've been accused of worse and almost always by folk who have "rigbteous"  belief system. Generally it's just that they are incapable of tolerating ideas and opinions other than their own. 

I think that describes you quite nicely Scotty. 

[RenfrewBlue]

9 minutes ago, BlueGaz said:

Not so sure Shed, a lot would depend on whether this is employment law or limited company status law?  What if Warburton Limited is providing services to The Rangers?  And of course there is the matter of what the agent has said / agreed etc.

Hadn't thought of it like that Gaz. It would depend quite heavily on how the original contracts were worded then. 

[Guest BlueGaz]

1 minute ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Hadn't thought of it like that Gaz. It would depend quite heavily on how the original contracts were worded then. 

Yep. I must admit, I know nothing of how managers tend to get paid in football, but would be very surprised if they are employees of the club rather than contractors.  Huge benefits to being contractors.  If it is commercial, its a whole deal different.

[euan2020]

22 hours ago, BlueGaz said:

I don't know how the law is in this particular type of scenario, but its not always the case that for "something" to be binding, it "must" be in writing - know that for a fact.  But my experience is a meeting, and what was said in the meeting, can be binding in commercial law between 2 companies, this would obviously be employment law, so not sure if the same rules apply.

verbal contract is a contract - no need for it to be in writing

agents actions are normally binding on their client, unless they are acting beyond what would be an agent expected to action - ie I guess accepting contracts would in their authority - not convivned that submitting resignation would be in normal course of their authority

written contracts are more to keep it formal and documented, but verbal is binding although better with witnesses 

[Scotty CTA]

10 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Does that make me evil too as I'm a supporter? 

I've been accused of worse...

I haven't accused you of anything (except maybe now of being melodramatic).

Plenty of folk from all walks of Scottish life (and beyond) also want The Rangers to lose every game they play.

If you are emotionally invested in that 'thinking' and 'culture' then you'll just have to deal with it.

21 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

...and almost always by folk who have "rigbteous"  belief system. Generally it's just that they are incapable of tolerating ideas and opinions other than their own. 

Don't play the victim. My good nature to nearly 15 years of mocking and personal insults has been over and above.

29 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

I think that describes you quite nicely Scotty. 

Well, thankfully only what God thinks will matter in the end.

(Be sure and get right with Him.)

 

[Larky Masher]

59 minutes ago, euan2020 said:

verbal contract is a contract - no need for it to be in writing

agents actions are normally binding on their client, unless they are acting beyond what would be an agent expected to action - ie I guess accepting contracts would in their authority - not convivned that submitting resignation would be in normal course of their authority

written contracts are more to keep it formal and documented, but verbal is binding although better with witnesses 

 

 

Verbal contracts are binding but it would be best to get in confirmed in writing as soon as possible, even if there are witnesses.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Larky Masher

[ShedTA]

1 hour ago, BlueGaz said:

Not so sure Shed, a lot would depend on whether this is employment law or limited company status law?  What if Warburton Limited is providing services to The Rangers?  And of course there is the matter of what the agent has said / agreed etc.

Good point and I would imagine that Warburton does work in that fashion. But I have a ltd company. I can agree to an engagement verbally but tbh if I don't sign a written contract then it pretty much means f@ck all.

[ShedTA]

33 minutes ago, Larky Masher said:

Verbal contracts are binding but it would be best to get in confirmed in writing as soon as possible, even if there are witnesses.

Yes as mentioned verbal contracts are supposedly binding, but in practice, in a court of law? Nah.

[Guest BlueGaz]

1 minute ago, ShedTA said:

Good point and I would imagine that Warburton does work in that fashion. But I have a ltd company. I can agree to an engagement verbally but tbh if I don't sign a written contract then it pretty much means f@ck all.

Agree, but there is a huge difference between someone being fired incorrectly, and a contract between two companies not being adhered to.  

[ShedTA]

1 hour ago, euan2020 said:

verbal contract is a contract - no need for it to be in writing

agents actions are normally binding on their client, unless they are acting beyond what would be an agent expected to action - ie I guess accepting contracts would in their authority - not convivned that submitting resignation would be in normal course of their authority

written contracts are more to keep it formal and documented, but verbal is binding although better with witnesses 

no need for it to be in writing? No company worth its salt anywhere will work on a verbal contract, so that is just not true.

[ShedTA]

1 minute ago, BlueGaz said:

Agree, but there is a huge difference between someone being fired incorrectly, and a contract between two companies not being adhered to.  

True but the same principle applies to termination of contract by either party. Needs to be in writing to be binding.

[RenfrewBlue]

30 minutes ago, ShedTA said:

True but the same principle applies to termination of contract by either party. Needs to be in writing to be binding.

Personally I think you're right Shed but we've got sub-contractors who do work without the contract being signed. Admittedly it's only a start they make and they expect the paperwork to be there quickly after. 

In this case I'd say unless there were a few folk present to hear the Agents offer there's no chance of Rangers winning. Even then it would be unlikely. 

Suppose it will all hinge on what documentation there is. Maybe minutes of the meeting agreed by the agent? 

Not sure that changes anything but it would help Rangers case. 

[ShedTA]

2 minutes ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Personally I think you're right Shed but we've got sub-contractors who do work without the contract being signed. Admittedly it's only a start they make and they expect the paperwork to be there quickly after. 

In this case I'd say unless there were a few folk present to hear the Agents offer there's no chance of Rangers winning. Even then it would be unlikely. 

Suppose it will all hinge on what documentation there is. Maybe minutes of the meeting agreed by the agent? 

Not sure that changes anything but it would help Rangers case. 

Hmmm possibly. I just don't think the agent thing means anything. An agent can say anything he wants on behalf of a client but I really don't think it's binding without 1) coming directly from the individual being engaged and 2) in writing.

Certainly that is the case in most big companies. Nothing counts if not in writing. If you hand in your notice - you can tell the client verbally if you want but your notice starts from point of written confirmation being received.  Applies both ways of course. Contractors at my work get told of terminations but written confirmation arrives same day.

[RenfrewBlue]

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

I haven't accused you of anything (except maybe now of being melodramatic).

Plenty of folk from all walks of Scottish life (and beyond) also want The Rangers to lose every game they play.

If you are emotionally invested in that 'thinking' and 'culture' then you'll just have to deal with it.

Don't play the victim. My good nature to nearly 15 years of mocking and personal insults has been over and above.

Well, thankfully only what God thinks will matter in the end.

(Be sure and get right with Him.)

 

Dear me,  you do make a lot of assumptions. 

I haven't accused you of accusing me of anything. Read the sentence properly. 

As you say plenty of folk want Rangers to lose. Not that many insist on the "The" in front of the name or are as vehement as you in their hatred. 

If you had read any of my posts in the past you'd know I'm not emotionally invested in any culture of the club. It's just a football team to me. 

I'm not playing the victim. You are. Devout religious people always do. 

You carry on believing that your imaginary pal will forgive all your sins. I'll just keep being a decent person and let my friends judge me on my actions. 

Your God is of no importance to me. ?

[ShedTA]

So most of he other Scottish clubs get nothing out of Europe. They also have no chance of winning the league ever again. They should just hand in notice and set up a new league with the sort of measures Adam has mentioned. Celtic can join if they agree to the terms. If uefa don't recognise new league who cares. Get nothing at the moment anyway.