Season › 2012-13 › News

SFA refuses clearance for Naismith

Lyndon Lloyd , 9 July, 34comments  |  Jump to most recent
FIFA grants temporary clearance for five ex-Rangers players
The Scottish FA have refused to grant international clearance for the five ex-Rangers players who chose not to have their contracts transferred to the Rangers newco and have since signed for new clubs in England and Switzerland, including, of course, Steven Naismith. FIFA has granted temporary clearance while they ponder an official ruling on the matter.

Scottish football's ruling body may not have sufficient legal grounds to prevent FIFA over-ruling them, however, seeing as Rangers FC plc has been consigned to liquidation while the newco has yet to officially become a member of the SFA.

Naismith, Steven Whittaker (Norwich City), Steve Davis (Southampton), Kyle Lafferty (FC Sion), and Jamie Ness (Stoke City) have been advised by their union that they refused to join Charles Green's newco on the basis that they are free agents.

Green, however, has written to the four English clubs that the players are in breach of contract.

Quotes or other material sourced from BBC Sport

Reader Comments (34)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Ian McDowell
1 Posted 09/07/2012 at 19:27:13
Charles Green sounds like a idiot.
Chris Cook
2 Posted 09/07/2012 at 19:39:14
Talk bout pressing your luck. Does this mean all of Chesters players should still be with them and they shouldn't of been kicked out of the Conference league :D
Alan Clarke
3 Posted 09/07/2012 at 19:50:45
Naismith should ask for the money that he didn't get when he volunteered to take a pay cut last season then. Kenwright should also refuse to give this 'newco' any remaining Jelavic money.
Andrew Ellams
4 Posted 09/07/2012 at 20:05:40
Maybe it's time for the EPL to join forces and put this crappy minor league in it's place
Brian Waring
5 Posted 09/07/2012 at 20:22:13
Andrew, why should this 'Crappy minor league' be put in its place?
Andrew Ellams
6 Posted 09/07/2012 at 20:37:51
Because Brian, why should they have the right to stop a group of guys moving on, perfectly legally, to progress their own careers? Is it sour grapes because talented Scottish players have chosen to better themselves in the English league? I wouldn't mind betting it is.

They need to spend more time sorting out their own crap.

James Stewart
7 Posted 09/07/2012 at 20:47:59
Clutching at thin air. Green needs to wake up and get on with rebuilding rather than trying to cling onto players who have already left. They are well within their right too.
Phil Rodgers
8 Posted 09/07/2012 at 20:48:30
This seems very petty to me. It's just delaying the inevitable. The SFA are embarrassing themselves.
Brian Morton
9 Posted 09/07/2012 at 20:50:50
The SFA can't transfer the registrations because Sevco are not members of the SFA are they!!!!
Gavin Ramejkis
10 Posted 09/07/2012 at 21:01:08
I don't know how they can argue this as people aren't cast iron transferable assets in a company takeover. I've been subject to TUPE in the past and during the whole legal consultation period the employees have every right to accept or deny transferring to the new entity, with the latter they would usually be able to claim a severance/redundancy package as part of the agreement.

I'd be flabbergasted that any employment lawyer on the planet would find differently, the players had contracts with Glasgow Rangers FC which has ceased to exist as have their contracts of employment. Green is a fool if he thinks he can win this and should accept the inevitable loss and get on with sorting out the new club.

Chris Leyland
11 Posted 09/07/2012 at 21:45:14
I agree entirely Gav. It's a bit of a case If newco wanting their cake and eating it. We will walk away from all our liabilities whilst cherry-picking the assets. Whilst this can happen in some cases with assets when a Phoenix company rises out of a liquidation it doesn't stretch to workers contracts. It doesn't matter if you are Joan the cleaner or Gary the multi millionaire footballer.
Danny Broderick
12 Posted 09/07/2012 at 22:32:41
This was to be expected. He is rolling the dice to somehow get a transfer fee and recover some value from the assets they have lost.

Unfortunately though, this is business. It will all get settled before the season starts and we'll have our man.
Andy Crooks
13 Posted 09/07/2012 at 22:43:06
Andrew, your post #936 is a collector's item of succinct, smug, condescension. Let's teach those uppity fuckers not to cross swords with the mighty EPL (those paragons of good practice and decency).
Andrew Ellams
14 Posted 09/07/2012 at 23:12:20
These people have done as much as they could, rightly or wrongly, to crush Rangers. Now, as soon as some of the Rangers players try to make the best out of a bad situation for themselves, the SFA attempt to put the blocks on it. Stinks of hypocrisy to me.
Dick Fearon
15 Posted 09/07/2012 at 23:10:31
I hope the law has changed since I faced a not totally dissimilar problem in the 60s. In those days a company could change hands any number of times and all outstanding debts, goods and chattel were transferred to each succeeding owner.

It was only a washing machine yet it was a matter of principle where I strongly objected to my personal information being bandied about among any number of companys and people.

I won the case but not on concerns for my privacy. It was because the new owners were unwilling to uphold a clause in the original contract that made them responsible for the repair and maintnance of the product.

Stevens situation is a throwback to the days of football slavery. The law in Scotland has its own peculiar practices and lord knows how this will pan out.

Peter Thistle
16 Posted 10/07/2012 at 01:38:12
Green is one of the most unlikeable people I've seen for a while. I'd be embarrassed if I were a Rangers fan to be represented by such an arsehole.
Eric Myles
17 Posted 10/07/2012 at 04:40:51
Gavin #953, but they are not just employees are they? They are company assest and in the accounts as such with a monetary value. Not quite the same as being the tea lady.

It will be an interesting outcome either way.

Mick Davies
18 Posted 10/07/2012 at 05:13:53
The most ridiculous attitude I've seen in football for a long time. The club still doesn't know if it will be able to play anywhere as they still haven't been allowed into the SFL. The players don't know if they have a job, they've took a pay cut for months to help the club, and when they manage to find employment elsewhere, the SPL hypocrites try to ruin their chances of playing football next season. If all these five players wanted to embarrass Rangers even further (if that were possible) they could all return, and if or when the club are allowed into the 3rd division, all 5 could demand their full wages, from a club who won't even be able to afford a taxi to Stenhousemuir and Cowdenbeath, never mind a coach. Total stupidity on the club and SPL's parts
Mick Davies
19 Posted 10/07/2012 at 05:33:52
And maybe BK should join in and embarrass himself by asking FIFA to make Newcastle give us a few million for Gosling. That handball save must have been worth at least a mil
Matt Traynor
20 Posted 10/07/2012 at 06:01:53
Eric #980, they are assets in an accounting sense but actually their value is based on their contract length. By refusing to transfer they have no contract, and therefore their value is 0. SevCo couldn't even claim a development fee if one of their young players left to go to another Scottish club.

As others have pointed out it's purely a logistical issue as SevCo has no legal status in Scottish football (although given they have refused to transfer to SevCo it should be a moot point). Football has long argued "special case" status in EU law, but one area they can never hope to circumvent is employment law.

Danny Kewley
21 Posted 10/07/2012 at 09:53:28
Although I know very little about employment law, surely it would be logical since Rangers ceased as a company that their players can move on as free agents because their ex boss cant pay them anymore? Thereby breaking their part of the contract. Just a thought, could the HMRC force a hand by making ex Rangers players new clubs pay something towards the money they lost when rangers were a company?
Chris Wright
22 Posted 10/07/2012 at 15:19:32
Out of interest could Rangers claim that the registration of the players transfered to the new club as an asset not the contract as such. Would this be something that EFC might have to pay for?
Eric Myles
23 Posted 10/07/2012 at 15:49:47
Matt, value in the books may be based on their contract length but the asset is the registration the club hold. That is only worthless when they become a Bosman. Maybe the club could be paid compensation to the tune of the asset value in the books?

Like I said, an interesting legal principle that could set a precedent.

Peter Barry
24 Posted 10/07/2012 at 17:23:46
Surely any contract they had with Rangers became null and void when Rangers stopped paying them the agreed wages that their contracts no doubt stipulated.
As Gavin said their contracts were also with Rangers FC not NEWCO or whatever they decide to become.
Gavin Ramejkis
25 Posted 10/07/2012 at 17:45:12
Eric, read up on the Bosman case. Despite all the "contract, no contract" malarkey, at the end of the day, employment law will side on the person and their ability to earn a wage rather than them being described as some form of tangible asset. In this particular scenario, the employer they had a contract of employment with ceased to trade and as such the newco offered them a new contract as it was to that newco's benefit.

The players have already taken a pay cut in an attempt to allow their original employer to survive the winding up petition, that failed and technically at the point of winding up so did the validity of their contract of employment. Green can argue until the cows come home but a keystone of European employment law is fairness which an industrial tribunal or court case would side on.

The players have no acted in any underhand manner and have simply decided against transferring to the newco; technically they were unemployed and offered a brand new contract. Any employment lawyer will tell you it is illegal to stop them being able to move on and find new employment and earn a living elsewhere.
Brian Waring
26 Posted 10/07/2012 at 17:45:42
The SFA procedurally cannot complete the international transfer clearance, as it has to be signed by all parties. Whatever that means.
Anto Byrne
27 Posted 10/07/2012 at 18:36:41
The new club in good faith has acquired the assets of the old club and the liabilities (players contracts), so to say the contracts are null and void is being somewhat naieve. It's a two-way street — the players get multi-million pound contracts that they expect to be honoured and the clubs get security of players for 4-5 years. How long will it take this new venture to get into the Scottish Premier League? Two seasons?
Eric Myles
28 Posted 11/07/2012 at 02:50:35
Gavin, you may well be right, I don't know and I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's going to be an interesting legal argument which will set a precedent for future bankrupcies. For example where does third party registration (Tevez) fit into your "employment law will side on the person and their ability to earn a wage rather than them being described as some form of tangible asset" If his 'owners' can't agree a fee with a club he can just walk away from them and sign up himself?

And how many times on this forum discussing our own debt has it been said we could sell the players for XX million and pay off the debt, but it looks like we could not if we were in such dire straights as Rangers were.

Peter Barry
29 Posted 11/07/2012 at 03:32:10
Anto Byrne # 089 What you are saying is that the players are merely assets and that their Contractually agreed wages which forms part and parcel of the asset agreement is not enforceable by the player or to be expected from the NEWCO. Now THAT is what I would call naivety.
Peter Barry
30 Posted 11/07/2012 at 03:40:30
NEWCO do not and cannot pay the wages that these 'assets' were signed up on.
Chad Schofield
31 Posted 11/07/2012 at 11:24:40
While I had some sympthies for Newco, this really makes me hope that they are not handed any lifelines at all. FIFA could enforce far worse for the non-SPL club.

People have said that it's in the best interests of Scottish football that Newco are not forced to join the lowest tier - so it must surprise everyone that the SFA have got involved in something which will ony reflect badly on them and Newco.

The SFA are there to serve the interests of all clubs in Scotland, not just big clubs. Many SPL clubs' supporters wrote to their respective chairmans urging them not to let Newco in regarless of the 'financial collapse if Rangers are locked out' threats. As we know Newco were overwhelmingly rejected from the SPL.

Now, after more dramatic (although possibly not too far from the truth) claims and an EGM requesting the SPL to reconsider... the SFA get involved in this - idiots.

Danny Kewley
32 Posted 11/07/2012 at 11:37:30
From reading all the posts, on this article, has made me realise that no one can seem to agree on the outcome of this case and there might well be a precedent set , should this go to the high court.
Ella Thornton
33 Posted 11/07/2012 at 12:11:57
According to the Guardian:
The Scottish Football Association cannot complete international transfer clearance for the players, as that has to be signed by all parties. But the association to which the players are affiliated can request temporary registration from Fifa to allow the player to play during the period of arbitration.

The PFA Scotland solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, said: "It is no surprise. There are objections from Rangers plc and the newco. We knew it was going to happen. They were always going to do that and there is a process that now has to be followed."

Steve Carter
34 Posted 12/07/2012 at 04:31:21
Gavin (953), I'm, er, an employment lawyer on the planet - albeit at the opposite end to you. Not being bothered to research the particular facts of Rangers, not knowing anything about 'standard' contracts of employment involving Scottish clubs, and assuming that Scottish law (inc statute) is materially similar to Australian (whose common law is essentially the same as England's), and if my understanding is that the business, rather than the shares, have been purchased is correct, then, yes, you're essentially correct. (Like I said, I'm a lawyer....)

The only cavet on that that occurs to me is that, although employees cannot be assigned (as it were) to the purchaser as part of the assets of the business bought, at common law the benefits of restrictive convenants in contracts of employment can be assigned (in this case by the liquidator) to a purchaser (provided that the contract of employment itself provides for such assignment), so maybe that's what the current fuss is essentially about.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads