Blogs

FIFA set to step into Sevco dispute

|
Image for FIFA set to step into Sevco dispute

Charles Green newsFIFA are set to step into the Sevco crisis after the SFA refused to issue international clearance for five former Rangers players.

Steven Davis, Steven Whittaker, Steven Naismith, Steven Ness and Steven Lafferty have all had their transfers to new clubs blocked.

To no-one’s surprise the SFA have backed out of making a decision on the international clearance despite having one of the sharpest administrators in the game on board in the form of President Campbell Ogilvie.

Following the decision to liquidate Rangers on June 12 Charles Green bought the assets for his Sevco club and announced that he’d be applying TUPE regulations to transfer over the contracts of employees of the old club.

Players Union chief Fraser Wishart highlighted the fact that no-one was obliged to transfer over to Sevco with Davis, Whittaker, Naismith, Ness and Lafferty announcing their intention to move on.

Last month Wishart revealed: “Should the Players wish to transfer across to the newco, TUPE ensures that they do so on their existing contractual terms.

“Equally TUPE affords every employee the statutory right to object to the transfer; employers cannot select which parts of TUPE they wish to apply.

“If a Player wishes to object to being transferred his contract of employment would immediately come to an end leaving him with no contract, no dismissal and no right to compensation from either oldco or newco.

“Both the Club and the Player are then free from their contractual obligations.”

It would be a major surprise if the PFA, Everton, Southampton, Norwich, Sion and Stoke City has misinterpreted the TUPE regulations.

FIFA’s involvement in this dispute may bring some unwelcome attention to the way that the SFA have acted over the last few months and their desire to shoe-horn Sevco into Division One of the SFL going against almost all rules of the game for liquidated clubs.

CLICK HERE for SFL clubs to be denied Sevco vote

Follow Video Celts on Twitter and Facebook

Share this article

Online and independent- the only way to be. Enjoying instant news access and reaction, following the trends if not an influencer!

0 comments

  • JohnP says:

    Totally agree with Sands. I am delighted the Old Firm are dead. Long live, Celtic. No more guilt by association, no more joint sponsorship, finally the death of not only Rangers but the horrible Old Firm tag. Let’s stand on our own and lead and help Scottish football, making it thrive and flourish.

  • Raymy says:

    Forgive me folks but this GunShot Wound fella is takin some almost nasty stuff and I’m no sure its justified.
    There’s surely no call for abuse, granted, he verged in being ridiculous at times but he didn’t appear to overstep the mark. You don’t have to agree with the guy but telling him to fuck off isnae exactly cricket since he wasn’t on here abusing people or the team aside from a bit of a piss take along with his points.

    Just saying cos he didn’t hit us with the pishy acronyms and sense of lordship that they appear to want to inflict on everyone and there was a bit of a joust.
    Was good to read. A wee shame, was quite enjoying him try to fight his corner, wrong as he was mostly, but no need for some the stuff going his way surely.

    • sands1888 says:

      If you want to be referred to as you lot by one of them just you bash on pal, ill no be spoken down to by any of them

  • Mike Bhoyle says:

    Raymy: Totally agree… I do not want us to be seen to be getting down to their level…( gutter)…

    GSW is takin’ the piss….and good on him for havin’ a go…he’s not been abusive ..he is however..deluded..and that’s a different thing entirely.

    Rankers are no more…we know that…so let’s stop debating it with people like GSW….

    Ignore him and soon he’ll do what lots and lots of Rankers’ people have done recently…

    HE’LL WALK AWAY.

    Hail Hail

  • Raymy says:

    If that’s what gets your goat then you bash on. taking it a bit too seriously I reckon for what was only a couple of words. Any one of us here could well have said the same thing to him in what appears to be the way it was intended and it would have passed without a glance. And to be fair, what you replied with far outweighs what he said.

Comments are closed.