Warburton resigned.

[Andy74]

Plenty case law out there on verbal resignation - just saying in haste that you are off and having a conversation about wishing to resign and detailing the compensation arrangements would be viewed very differently in court.

[Just Alf]

Plenty case law out there on verbal resignation - just saying in haste that you are off and having a conversation about wishing to resign and detailing the compensation arrangements would be viewed very differently in court.
It's an interesting one right enough. For me, I wonder how the Sevco claim that they accepted the resignation on Monday but they still put magic hat forward on the Thursday as the manager would be seen in a court of law.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170215/6efa03b40cb35fb645e93c0081f91fd3.jpg

Warburton statement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Onion]

If that is indeed what happened, Sevco don't have a leg to stand on and they'll have the pants sued off them in court.

Bottom line is Sevco have not dealt with Warburton in good faith and I hope the courts hammer them for that.

What the agent proposed appeared to suit both parties, who were in agreement. However, one of the pre-conditions (the new job) disappeared which changed the terms of the agreement. Instead of The Rangers accepting that and showing some support for their manager, they weasel an opportunity to sack the guy without compo. Horrible club run by shysters.

[Andy74]

Bottom line is Sevco have not dealt with Warburton in good faith and I hope the courts hammer them for that.

What the agent proposed appeared to suit both parties, who were in agreement. However, one of the pre-conditions (the new job) disappeared which changed the terms of the agreement. Instead of The Rangers accepting that and showing some support for their manager, they weasel an opportunity to sack the guy without compo. Horrible club run by shysters.

Sorry, much as I dislike Rangers there's no real way of us knowing that yet - you could easily take the other view from what we know that Warburton has attempted to wriggle his way back in or at least back in to some compensation when the job he thought he was leaving for fell apart.

[Geo_1875]

Sorry, much as I dislike Rangers there's no real way of us knowing that yet - you could easily take the other view from what we know that Warburton has attempted to wriggle his way back in or at least back in to some compensation when the job he thought he was leaving for fell apart.

Exactly this. Just settle down and enjoy the fallout.

[northstandhibby]

Sorry, much as I dislike Rangers there's no real way of us knowing that yet - you could easily take the other view from what we know that Warburton has attempted to wriggle his way back in or at least back in to some compensation when the job he thought he was leaving for fell apart.

Supposition is all fine and well, however the key question a Judge would directly focus upon is - Did the trio give formal notice of resignation to their employers The Rangers Football Club?

A seemingly simplistic question but ultimately it is the most important question the Judge must focus on when ruling on this case if it is put before a court of law. If it was simply a hypothetical conversation with the agent and director Robertson and resignations were not tendered there and then of which I think is the case then I'm certain no Judge could rule the trio had formally tendered their resignations.

I suggest a hypothetical conversation outlining how various outcomes might work out because if there had been formal resignations tendered King would have said as much instead of simply making reference to resignations being offered and has highly likely taken pieces of the hypothetical conversation whereby deliberately altering them out of context.

It would appear very true King is a man of deception and has pulled a fast one so to speak at the trio's expense of ushering them out the door in a deceitful and highly embarrassing manner.

I doubt this would end up in court and the trio will be paid the likely financial terms in their contracts of early termination.

A glib and shameless liar by dubious deception is King.

glory glory

[Andy74]

Supposition is all fine and well, however the key question a Judge would directly focus upon is - Did the trio give formal notice of resignation to their employers The Rangers Football Club?

A seemingly simplistic question but ultimately it is the most important question the Judge must focus on when ruling on this case if it is put before a court of law. If it was simply a hypothetical conversation with the agent and director Robertson and resignations were not tendered there and then of which I think is the case then I'm certain no Judge could rule the trio had formally tendered their resignations.

I suggest a hypothetical conversation outlining how various outcomes might work out because if there had been formal resignations tendered King would have said as much instead of simply making reference to resignations being offered and has highly likely taken pieces of the hypothetical conversation whereby deliberately altering them out of context.

It would appear very true King is a man of deception and has pulled a fast one so to speak at the trio's expense of ushering them out the door in a deceitful and highly embarrassing manner.

I doubt this would end up in court and the trio will be paid the likely financial terms in their contracts of early termination.

A glib and shameless liar by dubious deception is King.

glory glory

You start by saying its supposition then you move to outline your own take on events. Fact is we don't know the nature of the discussion and whether or not any resignation was clear or otherwise.

[northstandhibby]

You start by saying its supposition then you move to outline your own take on events. Fact is we don't know the nature of the discussion and whether or not any resignation was clear or otherwise.

That is why I stated the key question the Judge would have to focus upon Andy. Did the trio formally resign from The Rangers Football Club?

My opinion based on what has come out in the public domain so far is they did not.

Glory Glory

[Seveno]

If it goes to court, it may rest on the judge deciding who told the truth and who lied.

Rangers Director v Football Agent. :confused:

Best get The Donald to adjudicate.

[Andy74]

That is why I stated the key question the Judge would have to focus upon Andy. Did the trio formally resign from The Rangers Football Club?

My opinion based on what has come out in the public domain so far is they did not.

Glory Glory

Although you noted the words 'resignations were offered', if those were accepted then they resigned!

Hope the court case is costly all round.

[northstandhibby]

Although you noted the words 'resignations were offered', if those were accepted then they resigned!

Hope the court case is costly all round.

The words you quote could easily have been stated out of context. Ultimately it does not state the trio formally resigned with Warburton contradicting the quote by categorically stating he did not formally resign. We know the agent met Robertson for discussions and it is very possible he said resignations could be offered in the event of............... and we know according to reports that the agent discussed no compensation to another club in the event of them being being offered other positions. Cleverly worded by King and is very possibly taken out of context Andy. I would suggest KIng's statement should have read - 'Warburton and his team formally offered their resignations' if indeed they had done so. Its easy for a glib and shameless liar to deceitfully take words and twist them out of context.

glory glory

[Velma Dinkley]

As with all of the The Rangers statements, there are lots and lots of words offered yet not a single shred of evidence.

[Ozyhibby]

Given the amateur way it's been dealt with by Sevco and the professionalism shown by Warburton, Weir and McParland, my money is on Sevco trying to pull a fast one.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

Given the amateur way it's been dealt with by Sevco and the professionalism shown by Warburton, Weir and McParland, my money is on Sevco trying to pull a fast one.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You really think it's an example of professional behaviour to send your agent along to your employers to find out the best way to exit your job? Particularly stupid when the whole of the football world knew the employers were looking for a way to get shot of them.

[snooky]

As with all of the The Rangers statements, there are lots and lots of words offered yet not a single shred of evidence.

It's soooooooo unlike them not to provide any evidence to back up their statements. :rolleyes:

[HoboHarry]

You really think it's an example of professional behaviour to send your agent along to your employers to find out the best way to exit your job? Particularly stupid when the whole of the football world knew the employers were looking for a way to get shot of them.
What do you think that agents do normally? When a player leaves a club by mutual consent do you imagine that the player himself has negotiated that?

[ancient hibee]

What do you think that agents do normally? When a player leaves a club by mutual consent do you imagine that the player himself has negotiated that?
You've totally miissed the point.I wasn't commenting about him sending an agent but on what he sent the agent to do.Your last sentence implies I'm extremely thick,I'm not

[Ozyhibby]

You really think it's an example of professional behaviour to send your agent along to your employers to find out the best way to exit your job? Particularly stupid when the whole of the football world knew the employers were looking for a way to get shot of them.

That story has only came from Sevco? If there was a meeting, how do we know who instigated it? The Notts Forrest story, where did that come from?
Going by the official statements of both parties I would say W,Wand McP have behaved more professionally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

That story has only came from Sevco? If there was a meeting, how do we know who instigated it? The Notts Forrest story, where did that come from?
Going by the official statements of both parties I would say W,Wand McP have behaved more professionally


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well we don't really know.

That said if a failing manger of ours sent an agent to Ms Dempster to ask if they could resign for another job without compo either way we would undoubtedly be bang on her side if she accepted and said tough if the other gig fell through.

[northstandhibby]

Well we don't really know.

That said if a failing manger of ours sent an agent to Ms Dempster to ask if they could resign for another job without compo either way we would undoubtedly be bang on her side if she accepted and said tough if the other gig fell through.

We don't know if Warburton sent the agent to ask if they could resign for another job without compo. Forest have already said they didn't offer the job to Warburton according to media reports.

We do know for a fact Warburton has catagorically denied resigning from TRFC and TRFC have so far refused to answer any of his representatives questions.

glory glory

[jabis]

Been reliably informed,unless the rangers settle quietly,the next couple of days will be popcorn heaven😁

[blackpoolhibs]

I have no idea who did what here, but for a club thats apparently short of (aye ready's), they don't half rack up the lawyers fee's.

[Ozyhibby]

Well we don't really know.

That said if a failing manger of ours sent an agent to Ms Dempster to ask if they could resign for another job without compo either way we would undoubtedly be bang on her side if she accepted and said tough if the other gig fell through.

If that is what's happened. We only have that from Sevco.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

We don't know if Warburton sent the agent to ask if they could resign for another job without compo. Forest have already said they didn't offer the job to Warburton according to media reports.

We do know for a fact Warburton has catagorically denied resigning from TRFC and TRFC have so far refused to answer any of his representatives questions.

glory glory

Both are just statements. We don't know which if any are true.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Enormous pride at winning a semi-final and Petrofac cup :faf::faf:

[J-C]

Looking awfy like a big law suit against The Rangers by the Bread Man and Co.

[northstandhibby]

Both are just statements. We don't know which if any are true.

I think we're allowed to make judgement calls on whether or not we believe Warburton's statement presented from his representatives who are a pretty respected organisation set against the Gasl statement.

Surely you're not saying we should disregard all statements on the basis of we don't know if any of them are true or not. A person is allowed to scrutinise and interpret with then forming an opinion on them set around taking into consideration the known facts.

glory glory

[Andy74]

I think we're allowed to make judgement calls on whether or not we believe Warburton's statement presented from his representatives who are a pretty respected organisation set against the Gasl statement.

Surely you're not saying we should disregard all statements on the basis of we don't know if any of them are true or not. A person is allowed to scrutinise and interpret with then forming an opinion on them set around taking into consideration the known facts.

glory glory

No but some have made judgements based purely on who made them.

You'd need to look beyond them to find out the facts of the conversations/offers/agreements.

Warburton is being advised to say what he has. We don't know what he agreed to.

Same with Rangers statement. At the time they believed their manager had resigned. Again you'd need to know more to check if that was right or not.

When I was doing my law degree I don't recall a section on disregarding anything from organisations you don't like but maybe it was there.

Best if it's judged either way on the actual facts which we don't have.

[northstandhibby]

No but some have made judgements based purely on who made them.

You'd need to look beyond them to find out the facts of the conversations/offers/agreements.

Warburton is being advised to say what he has. We don't know what he agreed to.

Same with Rangers statement. At the time they believed their manager had resigned. Again you'd need to know more to check of that was right or not.

When I was doing my law degree I don't recall a section on disregarding anything from organisations you don't like but maybe it was there.

Best of it's judged either way on the actual facts which we don't have.

I too was versed in Law some time ago Andy.

As I previously stated in a previous post the question a Judge will find the most relevant is - Did Warburton and his team formally (officially) tender their resignations to TRFC.

Doesn't matter if the Rangers believed it to be the case as you should know. The agent would have to specifically have the trio's prior agreement to state formally to the director at the arranged meeting they had resigned from their posts.

Warburton through his representatives have made it known he did not resign.

You can't stop folk from speculating over who they believe in this hugely newsworthy story. I'm not just because you say 'we don't know'. This is a forum for folk to converse over such football hot topics.

glory glory

[brog]

So far we have 2 conflicting statements, 1 long & rambling, almost Trumpesque in it's quality & the other short & succinct, & of course extremely respectful! One statement is from a convicted criminal who a judge called a shameless liar & one is from a fanny, sorry a person without, AFAIK, a blemish on his character. Based on 1 known fact, that is that Warbs was being allowed to publicly represent his club & his employers 4 days after he supposedly resigned, I would say he has an exceptional case. Personally I don't think this will be settled quickly. King is never going to hand over large wedges of cash without dragging it out as long as possible. If some stories are to be believed MW has not yet received his promised promotion bonus from last year. I agree it may not reach court but DK will engage in lengthy brinksmanship aided & abetted by Traynor & Jackson.

[Eyrie]

So far we have 2 conflicting statements, 1 long & rambling, almost Trumpesque in it's quality & the other short & succinct, & of course extremely respectful! One statement is from a convicted criminal who a judge called a shameless liar & one is from a fanny, sorry a person without, AFAIK, a blemish on his character. Based on 1 known fact, that is that Warbs was being allowed to publicly represent his club & his employers 4 days after he supposedly resigned, I would say he has an exceptional case. Personally I don't think this will be settled quickly. King is never going to hand over large wedges of cash without dragging it out as long as possible. If some stories are to be believed MW has not yet received his promised promotion bonus from last year. I agree it may not reach court but DK will engage in lengthy brinksmanship aided & abetted by Traynor & Jackson.

The bit in bold is decisive.

[Ozyhibby]

Even if you disregard that it's Sevco making the statement, there are inconsistencies that are unexplained even in their own version of events.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

The bit in bold is decisive.

Not really. Again you'd need to know what was agreed, when and when it was to take effect.

[Deansy]

'Glib & Shameless Liar' V 'ex-City of London' Wide-boy - may the best crook win .................. as long as it pushes the Hun nearer another administration I'll be ever so slightly delirious with pleasure !

Have to pity the judge who gets this, though - it's like Nic Leeson V Ronnie Biggs !

[northstandhibby]

http://www.leaguemanagers.com/news/lma-latest/warburton--weir-and-mcparland-statement/

For anybody who hasn't had the opportunity to read the trio's statement. It's pretty conclusive they are clear they did not resign and are clarifying the matter in a prepared statement in response to TRFC previous statements of their version of events.

glory glory

[Eyrie]

Not really. Again you'd need to know what was agreed, when and when it was to take effect.

According to the Lying King the resignation was offered and accepted on the Monday, so why did Warburton take the press conference on the Friday?


"I was therefore not surprised when the management team's agent approached the club's managing director, Stewart Robertson, to request a meeting which was held in Glasgow on Monday this week.
"The outcome of this meeting was that the agent subsequently offered that Mark, David and Frank would resign with immediate effect without compensation as long as the club, in turn, agreed to waive compensation from any new club that they signed for.
"After discussion, the board accepted this offer and employment was immediately terminated.
"While we were dealing with the admin and press releases relating to the resignation, the agent again contacted us and asked to defer the resignation until the management had secured a new club.
"I assume that the new deal had somehow collapsed at the last minute. The board met to consider this request but resolved to hold them to the original agreement.

Looks cut and dried to me.

[Andy74]

According to the Lying King the resignation was offered and accepted on the Monday, so why did Warburton take the press conference on the Friday?



Looks cut and dried to me.

Are you telling me it's unheard of for people to work after having a resignation accepted?

Also looks quite clear from the bit you quoted that they resigned doesn't it?

We don't really know why it dragged on but looks as though the management team were trying to reverse the position. Could be that was considered for a bit then chucked out.

[blackpoolhibs]

Are you telling me it's unheard of for people to work after having a resignation accepted?

I cant think of any manager who's had his resignation accepted, then working as normal to the end of the week?

Might be wrong, but i cant remember this happening before in football? :dunno:

[Andy74]

I cant think of any manager who's had his resignation accepted, then working as normal to the end of the week?

Might be wrong, but i cant remember this happening before in football? :dunno:

Dunno. How many changed their mind and it dragged on? We just don't really know but looks very much like they did say they wanted to resign.

Actually Ronny Deila resigned from Celtic and took effect from end of that season

[Jack Hackett]

Are you telling me it's unheard of for people to work after having a resignation accepted?

Also looks quite clear from the bit you quoted that they resigned doesn't it?

When the term used is 'employment was immediately terminated', it kind of conjures up an image of a couple of security guards escorting you off the premises, which is a bit at odds with the Friday interview...and it's a matter of trust as to whether you believe level 5's version of what happened. Sooo......I'll pass

[brog]

Dunno. How many changed their mind and it dragged on? We just don't really know but looks very much like they did say they wanted to resign.

Actually Ronny Deila resigned from Celtic and took effect from end of that season

Not sure why you're so keen to accept the word of Dave King etc Andy. For all we know their statement is as accurate as the one saying every Sevco player was attacked after the cup Final!

[Andy74]

When the term used is 'employment was immediately terminated', it kind of conjures up an image of a couple of security guards escorting you off the premises, which is a bit at odds with the Friday interview...and it's a matter of trust as to whether you believe level 5's version of what happened. Sooo......I'll pass

Yes but they go on to say that they wanted to change their minds. Not unreasonable that it was discussed for a period then decided to stick with accepting the resignation.

Are people really suggesting the whole thing with the agent asking for the team to resign did not happen at all?

If it did it's down to what was really said and agreed. If it was totally fabricated as seems to be suggested it's a new level of complete lies that I find unlikely even for them.

[lapsedhibee]

Yes but they go on to say that they wanted to change their minds. Not unreasonable that it was discussed for a period then decided to stick with accepting the resignation.

Are people really suggesting the whole thing with the agent asking for the team to resign did not happen at all?

If it did it's down to what was really said and agreed. If it was totally fabricated as seems to be suggested it's a new level of complete lies that I find unlikely even for them.
Hardly. Same level (5).

[Andy74]

Not sure why you're so keen to accept the word of Dave King etc Andy. For all we know their statement is as accurate as the one saying every Sevco player was attacked after the cup Final!

As above do you think it is likely they have totally fabricated from nothing a request for the manager team to resign? Really?

Or more likely is this down to who has lost in a bit of brinkmanship on both sides following that request?

[The Leith Dutch]

Looking awfy like a big law suit against The Rangers by the Bread Man and Co.

Here's to a lengthy trial, some whopping lawyers bills and The Rangers having to pay compensation and all legal costs.

[Andy74]

Hardly. Same level (5).

The cup final stuff was indeed very poor but it was based to some extent on events.

Would a resignation request be totally fabricated and acted upon? I very much doubt that.

Something happened and it then comes down to interpreting what. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, just not accepting like some that Warburton is totally in the right saying he didn't resign. I think there is a degree of each side taking a position based on events that will work out best for them. What was really agreed we don't know.

[Ozyhibby]

Surely if the 3 of them resigned on the Monday and it was immediately accepted, there was plenty of time to get all the paperwork done before the Friday?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack Hackett]

Yes but they go on to say that they wanted to change their minds. Not unreasonable that it was discussed for a period then decided to stick with accepting the resignation.

Are people really suggesting the whole thing with the agent asking for the team to resign did not happen at all?

If it did it's down to what was really said and agreed. If it was totally fabricated as seems to be suggested it's a new level of complete lies that I find unlikely even for them.

Their statement said that while they were considering press releases and admin, they received a request to defer the resignation....when was this? Next day....day after? It's taking them a long time to announce he's resigned. Did it really take them until Friday night to meet and consider the request?

[Hibernia&Alba]

It will have to be settled in court, by the look of things. We don't know which side is in the wrong; perhaps both are.

[northstandhibby]

I'm hoping like other posters on here that Warburton and the others refuse any offers of settlement and have their cases heard in order for us to learn just exactly what did take place between the agent and the hun director.

glory glory

[jacomo]

The cup final stuff was indeed very poor but it was based to some extent on events.

Would a resignation request be totally fabricated and acted upon? I very much doubt that.

Something happened and it then comes down to interpreting what. I'm not saying who's right or wrong, just not accepting like some that Warburton is totally in the right saying he didn't resign. I think there is a degree of each side taking a position based on events that will work out best for them. What was really agreed we don't know.


You like being the contrarian on here Andy, I'll give you that.

I don't doubt Warburton was looking at other options. But given the behaviour of the individuals involved, their reputations for honesty, and the inconsistencies in Sevco's statements on the matter, I'm pretty sure who I believe.

Sevco say they accepted Warburton's resignation without anyone in authority at the club having a direct discussion with him. Really? Arguably the manager is the single most important employee at any club, yet they didn't talk with him directly?

It defies belief, it really does.

[Andy74]

You like being the contrarian on here Andy, I'll give you that.

I don't doubt Warburton was looking at other options. But given the behaviour of the individuals involved, their reputations for honesty, and the inconsistencies in Sevco's statements on the matter, I'm pretty sure who I believe.

Sevco say they accepted Warburton's resignation without anyone in authority at the club having a direct discussion with him. Really? Arguably the manager is the single most important employee at any club, yet they didn't talk with him directly?

It defies belief, it really does.

I'm not sure how I can be contrary when I'm saying we don't know the answer? You've made a judgement based on pretty much nothing. I don't care either way who is right but it's not quite as simple as taking a side on this one.

[northstandhibby]

You like being the contrarian on here Andy, I'll give you that.

I don't doubt Warburton was looking at other options. But given the behaviour of the individuals involved, their reputations for honesty, and the inconsistencies in Sevco's statements on the matter, I'm pretty sure who I believe.

Sevco say they accepted Warburton's resignation without anyone in authority at the club having a direct discussion with him. Really? Arguably the manager is the single most important employee at any club, yet they didn't talk with him directly?

It defies belief, it really does.

To quote Andy's probable reasoned riposte - 'Nobody knows' so that's it, done and dusted'.

:greengrin

glory glory

[lapsedhibee]

The cup final stuff was indeed very poor but it was based to some extent on events.

Would a resignation request be totally fabricated and acted upon? I very much doubt that.


Very poor? It was almost totally fabricated. Fans, acting with commendable restraint, ran on pitch to defend players? Players couldn't leave the dressing room to collect runners-up medals for safety reasons?

Way less of a leap to describe a hypothetical enquiry about leaving as a resignation. Warburton to win unless LNS has a say in it.

[WhileTheChief..]

Last week everyone was calling Warburton a f***y.

Now everyone's on his side? It's purely down to hatred of Rangers and nothing to do with who is right or wrong.

He was an imposter who certainly never respected anything about Scottish football. Brentford was his level.

Rangers did well to get rid, even it costs them a few bob. And we all get a wee bit amusement into the bargain.

[lapsedhibee]

Last week everyone was calling Warburton a f***y.

Now everyone's on his side? It's purely down to hatred of Rangers and nothing to do with who is right or wrong.

He was an imposter who certainly never respected anything about Scottish football. Brentford was his level.

Rangers did well to get rid, even it costs them a few bob. And we all get a wee bit amusement into the bargain.

King just possibly a bit of an imposter as well? Warburton is a fanny, but he's no slug like Traynor!

[greenlex]

Rangers can't possibly have anything in writing regards resignation or Warburton wouldn't have a leg to stand on and wouldn't be disputing it. It was no doubt talked about but with nothing in writing Rangers don't have a leg either. Warburton whilst possibly being more of a fanny than usual can and possibly will take them to the cleaners.

[Andy74]

Rangers can't possibly have anything in writing regards resignation or Warburton wouldn't have a leg to stand on and wouldn't be disputing it. It was no doubt talked about but with nothing in writing Rangers don't have a leg either. Warburton whilst possibly being more of a fanny than usual can and possibly will take them to the cleaners.

You can resign verbally.

[greenlex]

You can resign verbally.

Which has to be followed up in writing otherwise it really is meaningless and a case of he says he says. Which is where we are. Warburton would win a tribunal.

[Topographic Hibby]

Not really. Again you'd need to know what was agreed, when and when it was to take effect.
Correct. If I resign from my current job today, I am still employed for 28 days and can still represent said employer and undertake duties they see fit. That could include standing in front of a journalist and saying how wonderful my employer is. That's what my contract says, so I have to follow it.

I could still be an annoying toe-rag in the 28 days and I still buy the lotto ticket so that I might have one helluva enjoyable 28 day period!!!

[northstandhibby]

You can resign verbally.

That's true but would normally be carried out by the relevant person. Warburton et al were not present at the disputed resignation event and have now put on record their denial at having resigned in any shape or form.

Wouldn't it have been incumbent upon the board to have confirmed first hand their manager et al had formally resigned verbally?

glory glory

[ancient hibee]

Which has to be followed up in writing otherwise it really is meaningless and a case of he says he says. Which is where we are. Warburton would win a tribunal.
Is it not the case that under Scots Law contracts can be verbal and therefore changed verbally.

[mjhibby]

You like being the contrarian on here Andy, I'll give you that.

I don't doubt Warburton was looking at other options. But given the behaviour of the individuals involved, their reputations for honesty, and the inconsistencies in Sevco's statements on the matter, I'm pretty sure who I believe.

Sevco say they accepted Warburton's resignation without anyone in authority at the club having a direct discussion with him. Really? Arguably the manager is the single most important employee at any club, yet they didn't talk with him directly?

It defies belief, it really does.

Should make very interesting reading if it goes to a tribunal. The version of events from both sides don't ring true to me but as they say it will all come out with the wash.

[Andy74]

That's true but would normally be carried out by the relevant person. Warburton et al were not present at the disputed resignation event and have now put on record their denial at having resigned in any shape or form.

Wouldn't it have been incumbent upon the board to have confirmed first hand their manager et al had formally resigned verbally?

glory glory

That might be a point a court would look at but largely accepted convention and intent of parties would play a big part. Would Rangers be entitled to view the agent as the representative of the parties and would they ordinarily be conveying the wishes of their clients?

[Eyrie]

That might be a point a court would look at but largely accepted convention and intent of parties would play a big part. Would Rangers be entitled to view the agent as the representative of the parties and would they ordinarily be conveying the wishes of their clients?

The established convention is that the manager is on gardening leave until the pay off is agreed, not that he takes the press conference before being relieved of his duties. Using your logic Warburton should have still taken the Morton game since he had overseen training for it during the week and not the guy dragged out of the youth team to replace him at short notice.

As regard intent, why Warburton would resign his lucrative position at Sevco without compensation until he knew he had the Forest job? It's far more likely that the intent was only to establish if Sevco would insist on compensation, which would be an obstacle to another club appointing him.

I hope you'll represent Sevco in any court case :greengrin

[brog]

As above do you think it is likely they have totally fabricated from nothing a request for the manager team to resign? Really?

Or more likely is this down to who has lost in a bit of brinkmanship on both sides following that request?

It's not that Andy, you've made several comments where you quote or paraphrase The Rangers' statement as if it's fact, even though you subsequently qualify those comments by saying we don't know what's going on. FWIW I'm pretty sure the agent did have some conversation with The Rangers but I'm even more sure they never resigned at any time. In the absence of any written resignation or an earth shattering tape recording of Warbs resigning then IMO DK is right royally rogered. As for those wondering why some on here now appear supportive of MW, it's pretty simple. He's gone, the evil that is RFC lives on & I'm for anything that damages that festering club.

[monarch]

Could it be that Sevco know that they may have some liability here but, as they're basically broke at the moment, are waiting on next season's ticket money coming so are currently buying time.
Once the ticket money arrives they'll be in a position to agree an amount prior to the case coming to court.

[northstandhibby]

That might be a point a court would look at but largely accepted convention and intent of parties would play a big part. Would Rangers be entitled to view the agent as the representative of the parties and would they ordinarily be conveying the wishes of their clients?

My view would be the agent would have ensured paperwork was signed from his/her clients clearly showing intent to resign from their employment. The agents clients have put on the record they did not resign in any shape or form.

If it transpires there is an absence of concrete evidence with the agent and clients willing to put their case before a full hearing how do you think the outcome would develop?

glory glory

[tamig]

Last week everyone was calling Warburton a f***y.

Now everyone's on his side? It's purely down to hatred of Rangers and nothing to do with who is right or wrong.

He was an imposter who certainly never respected anything about Scottish football. Brentford was his level.

Rangers did well to get rid, even it costs them a few bob. And we all get a wee bit amusement into the bargain.

Warburton is a fanny. The song makes that abundantly clear. What that has to do with some people having a tendency to trust him a bit more than King I don't really know.

[Mr White]

I watched the interview with interim coach Graeme Murty before they played Morton on sunday. He said he got a phone call on friday night asking if he'd take the first team on the sunday. That together with the breadman doing the press conference on the friday morning doesn't really fit with kings narrative of accepting Warburtons resignation 5 days earlier imo.

Anyway who cares hopefully they both lose in court :greengrin

[jacomo]

Warburton is a fanny. The song makes that abundantly clear. What that has to do with some people having a tendency to trust him a bit more than King I don't really know.


:agree:

Warburton's competence is not the issue here. Sevco have every right to get rid.

What's amusing is their concerted efforts to trash his reputation so they can avoid paying him off. IMO.

[Andy74]

It's not that Andy, you've made several comments where you quote or paraphrase The Rangers' statement as if it's fact, even though you subsequently qualify those comments by saying we don't know what's going on. FWIW I'm pretty sure the agent did have some conversation with The Rangers but I'm even more sure they never resigned at any time. In the absence of any written resignation or an earth shattering tape recording of Warbs resigning then IMO DK is right royally rogered. As for those wondering why some on here now appear supportive of MW, it's pretty simple. He's gone, the evil that is RFC lives on & I'm for anything that damages that festering club.

Not at all. We don't know that any of them are factual. Some were taking Warburton denying it as confirmation he didn't. Taken as read the Rangers one says the opposite.

I do find it odd that there hasn't been more fuss from the management team. If my employers had totally fabricated my resignation I wouldnt be letting it lie. As a high profile individual with access to press and pretty wealthy already you'd think there'd be more than a carefully worded statement a few days later. Looks more like legal positioning to me than someone who has just had a resignation story completely made up about him.

[Sir David Gray]

Agree would depend on the nature of the conversation and agreement with the representative at that time.

If I said to my manager in the morning that I had an interview next week and, should I be successful, could I give two weeks' notice as opposed to the four weeks, as stated in my contract, then I wouldn't expect that to be taken as a notice of resignation.

If that's roughly how the conversation went between the agent and the Sevco board then there's no doubt that they'll lose in any court battle.

[Andy74]

If I said to my manager in the morning that I had an interview next week and, should I be successful, could I give two weeks' notice as opposed to the four weeks, as stated in my contract, then I wouldn't expect that to be taken as a notice of resignation.

If that's roughly how the conversation went between the agent and the Sevco board then there's no doubt that they'll lose in any court battle.
That's not how the conversation is alleged to have gone though. The agent is said to have offered the resignations there and then for waiving compensation from any club. Rangers are said to have agreed to this. Before it was announced the agent asked for this to be reversed. Rangers claim to have then discussed as a board and decided to stick with accepting resignation.

Warburton then denies resigning.

As I've said I can see that both sides will think they are right but I think from both statements that Warburton looks as though he is trying to argue the technical points of what was counted as a resignation.

That would come down to the detail of that initial agreement.

Some however think the initial offer and agreement was totally made up. It's that I don't find to be likely.

[JackLadd]

One thing we know from Green's failure to get King to cover his legal costs (a ludicrous decision) is that Warbs will be up against more than just the law.

[HFC 0-7]

If the so called resignation was verbal, from the agent, and a court rules that the verbal agreement is enough, surely any football team wanting to punt their manager in future just needs to claim that they verbally resigned at which point it's their word against the managers??? Too big a can of worms there I would imagine!

[brog]

That's not how the conversation is alleged to have gone though. The agent is said to have offered the resignations there and then for waiving compensation from any club. Rangers are said to have agreed to this. Before it was announced the agent asked for this to be reversed. Rangers claim to have then discussed as a board and decided to stick with accepting resignation.

Warburton then denies resigning.

As I've said I can see that both sides will think they are right but I think from both statements that Warburton looks as though he is trying to argue the technical points of what was counted as a resignation.

That would come down to the detail of that initial agreement.

Some however think the initial offer and agreement was totally made up. It's that I don't find to be likely.

I dont think Ive seen one post which states that the whole thing was made up by Sevco. Im sure there were some preliminary discussions re a potential future situation. That however is a long way from a resignation & surely even you find MW's hosting a press conference days after an alleged resignation as somewhat bizarre. Mind you, maybe its the new fake news fashion & we can expect to see Lee Clark doing Killie's press meeting tomorrow!

[Skol]

Its going to come down to the actual words used by the agent. If he was exploring hypothetically then Rangers are struggling. If it is as Rangers say then Warburton is struggling. That said, any normal employer would have either accepted the resignation straight away after entering into formal discussions to sort it in writing etc

[Andy74]

Its going to come down to the actual words used by the agent. If he was exploring hypothetically then Rangers are struggling. If it is as Rangers say then Warburton is struggling. That said, any normal employer would have either accepted the resignation straight away after entering into formal discussions to sort it in writing etc

The complication seem to have been that they came back and asked for it to be reversed, which was considered then eventually not accepted. As you say though comes down to what was agreed at that initial discussion.

[mjhibby]

Its going to come down to the actual words used by the agent. If he was exploring hypothetically then Rangers are struggling. If it is as Rangers say then Warburton is struggling. That said, any normal employer would have either accepted the resignation straight away after entering into formal discussions to sort it in writing etc

The 4 day gap between the alleged resignations and announcements means king and his cohorts have a lot of explaining to do. Even the weedgya media have been quick to slate sevcos handling of the whole shambles. Has all the hallmark of a traynor cock up. You couldn't make up this comedy. I'm sure the sellick fans sides are splitting over the omnishambles.

[Paisley Hibby]

I think both sides are just posturing ahead of what will probably be an out of court settlement with (sadly) a non-disclosure clause.

[keep the faith]

I think both sides are just posturing ahead of what will probably be an out of court settlement with (sadly) a non-disclosure clause.

100%

[greenginger]

The 4 day gap between the alleged resignations and announcements means king and his cohorts have a lot of explaining to do. Even the weedgya media have been quick to slate sevcos handling of the whole shambles. Has all the hallmark of a traynor cock up. You couldn't make up this comedy. I'm sure the sellick fans sides are splitting over the omnishambles.


My guess would be it would have taken a few days for the non-resident non-chairman Dave King to get wind of the discussion about a possible split between Sevco and Warburton and Co. and he's thought , great , we can get rid of this tosser without compensation and get a real Rangers man in to sell next year's season tickets.

Trouble was, before any agreement could be made the the Notts job was off the table.

King just brass-necked it anyway knowing any compensation would be kicked far off down the road with delayed tribunals , appeals, etc.

[Just Alf]

Its going to come down to the actual words used by the agent. If he was exploring hypothetically then Rangers are struggling. If it is as Rangers say then Warburton is struggling. That said, any normal employer would have either accepted the resignation straight away after entering into formal discussions to sort it in writing etc


The complication seem to have been that they came back and asked for it to be reversed, which was considered then eventually not accepted. As you say though comes down to what was agreed at that initial discussion.

How does the fact (as voiced by Notts) that they had never even offered the job to the Hat colour the picture? Does it not make it more likely that the Monday conversation was indeed an exploration of possibilities?

Questions! Questions!

:flag:

[Carheenlea]

This was great entertainment on Friday night, but like the other thread on here about Rangers, I'm just scrolling through without really reading what's being said. Bored with them.

[Velma Dinkley]

The complication seem to have been that they came back and asked for it to be reversed, which was considered then eventually not accepted. As you say though comes down to what was agreed at that initial discussion.

You keep telling everyone they don't know what happened because they don't know all the facts. Then you keep making it clear you're just accepting the The Rangers' version of events. :greengrin

[Andy74]

How does the fact (as voiced by Notts) that they had never even offered the job to the Hat colour the picture? Does it not make it more likely that the Monday conversation was indeed an exploration of possibilities?

Questions! Questions!

:flag:

I think covered by the initial statement in that the reference was only to allowing compensation to be waived in the event that they moved on to another employer. It wasn't specific as to who the future employer may be or whether that was imminent or not.

[Andy74]

You keep telling everyone they don't know what happened because they don't know all the facts. Then you keep making it clear you're just accepting the The Rangers' version of events. :greengrin

There isn't an alternative set of events in any detail as yet so just suggesting what appears to have happened from the statements so far and how they aren't necessarily flawed from the bits and pieces people are throwing in.

[MrSmith]

The one part that interests me is: if the trio definitely did not resign, why did they not turn up for work on Friday or Saturday to underpin the point therefore, making it difficult for the Rangers to escape media attention of firing the three right back out the door?

[lapsedhibee]

The one part that interests me is: if the trio definitely did not resign, why did they not turn up for work on Friday or Saturday to underpin the point therefore, making it difficult for the Rangers to escape media attention of firing the three right back out the door?

Too much dignity to deliberately create a scene like that?

[brog]

My guess would be it would have taken a few days for the non-resident non-chairman Dave King to get wind of the discussion about a possible split between Sevco and Warburton and Co. and he's thought , great , we can get rid of this tosser without compensation and get a real Rangers man in to sell next year's season tickets.

Trouble was, before any agreement could be made the the Notts job was off the table.

King just brass-necked it anyway knowing any compensation would be kicked far off down the road with delayed tribunals , appeals, etc.

Pretty much fits with my take. King will stall as much as possible to avoid any payment for a considerable time. In fact, possibly after he's bailed out!

[Big L]

If you were sending an agent in to resign on your behalf, the agent would surely have to produce documentation to satisfy the board that he had the authotity to do just that, which in this case would have been put on file by Rangers. If that was the case Rangers would have produced it by now! The one person who can shed light on this is the agent and to date he has had nothing to say, does anyone know who he is?

[Moulin Yarns]

If you were sending an agent in to resign on your behalf, the agent would surely have to produce documentation to satisfy the board that he had the authotity to do just that, which in this case would have been put on file by Rangers. If that was the case Rangers would have produced it by now! The one person who can shed light on this is the agent and to date he has had nothing to say, does anyone know who he is?


In true 'Coisty' fashion, we need to know who these agents are!!

Would appear to be a guy called Dave Lockwood.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4216026/Mark-Warburton-s-departure-hasty-Ian-Ferguson.html

[mjhibby]

My guess would be it would have taken a few days for the non-resident non-chairman Dave King to get wind of the discussion about a possible split between Sevco and Warburton and Co. and he's thought , great , we can get rid of this tosser without compensation and get a real Rangers man in to sell next year's season tickets.

Trouble was, before any agreement could be made the the Notts job was off the table.

King just brass-necked it anyway knowing any compensation would be kicked far off down the road with delayed tribunals , appeals, etc.

That sounds plausible. Plus of course season tickets to shift. Makes the daily records hotline highly amusing everyday.

[Andy74]

If you were sending an agent in to resign on your behalf, the agent would surely have to produce documentation to satisfy the board that he had the authotity to do just that, which in this case would have been put on file by Rangers. If that was the case Rangers would have produced it by now! The one person who can shed light on this is the agent and to date he has had nothing to say, does anyone know who he is?

I don't think anything specific would need to be produced - the board will have been able to reasonably assume that the agent who ordinarily has acted for them with full authority is also acting on their behalf on this occasion. I'm sure the conversation would have had to be clear what he was asking for his clients. As you say though there's been nothing much coming out that contradicts the Rangers view of events other than a statement that they did not resign. The legal argument will be a technical one on what exactly was said in the initial meeting and whether or not the request for reversal of that means they did not in fact resign.

[Jim44]

It takes two to tango and I think that the shambles/entertainment of last week was far from the beginning of the story. I wouldn't be surprised if both parties had ongoing serious, animosity towards each other, wanted rid of each other, but knew a stalemate was likely. Warburton put his toe in the water last week and, by the end of the week, Sevco wouldn't let him remove his toe and pulled him into the pool. Anybody who thinks this is going to be a juicy pantomime might be disappointed as we've all said from the start that it will be an out of court settlement without any drama.

[Ozyhibby]

I don't think anything specific would need to be produced - the board will have been able to reasonably assume that the agent who ordinarily has acted for them with full authority is also acting on their behalf on this occasion. I'm sure the conversation would have had to be clear what he was asking for his clients. As you say though there's been nothing much coming out that contradicts the Rangers view of events other than a statement that they did not resign. The legal argument will be a technical one on what exactly was said in the initial meeting and whether or not the request for reversal of that means they did not in fact resign.

What request for reversal? Warburton makes clear that they at no time resigned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Big L]

I think it's naive to think an individual can waltz in and resign on behalf of a client without producing the appropriate authorisation, your talking big money and court cases if it's not handled properly. I actually think the agent had a chat and said something along the lines off" look you want rid, I will see if I can get him to Forest, of he toddles, doesn't get the gig, comes back and say's sorry, we are where we are meantime and Rangers say naw! We accept his resignation after all, he wanted to leave " I doubt very much if Warburton/Weir said anything to anyone about resigning. Fact is I really don't care, I wish Rangers and Warburton could both get it up them for the disgusting way they reacted to our Cup Win!

[Deansy]

If I said to my manager in the morning that I had an interview next week and, should I be successful, could I give two weeks' notice as opposed to the four weeks, as stated in my contract, then I wouldn't expect that to be taken as a notice of resignation.

If that's roughly how the conversation went between the agent and the Sevco board then there's no doubt that they'll lose in any court battle.

That's my take on it as well. King, knowing the hordes were fed-up with the 'hat' but also knowing they couldn't afford to pay him off, thought he saw an opportunity. Think the tribunal will prove him wrong.

[Andy74]

What request for reversal? Warburton makes clear that they at no time resigned?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And Rangers made clear he did, then wanted to change it...there's the quandary to sort out. Warburton and his agent could give more detail of course because Rangers did go into a fair bit on when various meetings took place and what was discussed.

If I was raging about my employer making stuff up to get rid of me I think I'd be all over it.

[Andy74]

I think it's naive to think an individual can waltz in and resign on behalf of a client without producing the appropriate authorisation, your talking big money and court cases if it's not handled properly. I actually think the agent had a chat and said something along the lines off" look you want rid, I will see if I can get him to Forest, of he toddles, doesn't get the gig, comes back and say's sorry, we are where we are meantime and Rangers say naw! We accept his resignation after all, he wanted to leave " I doubt very much if Warburton/Weir said anything to anyone about resigning. Fact is I really don't care, I wish Rangers and Warburton could both get it up them for the disgusting way they reacted to our Cup Win!

On the contrary I think its naïve to think that an agent would not be able to discuss matters with the club with full authority.

We have a narrative from Rangers about a clear discussion about resignation and an alleged agreement on the terms, which were accepted - if you don't believe it that's fine because we weren't there but what is your guesswork on a very different conversation based on?

[Ozyhibby]

And Rangers made clear he did, then wanted to change it...there's the quandary to sort out. Warburton and his agent could give more detail of course because Rangers did go into a fair bit on when various meetings took place and what was discussed.

If I was raging about my employer making stuff up to get rid of me I think I'd be all over it.

He has engaged his lawyers which would suggest he is all over it. Sevco are claiming all three resigned but they have no paperwork and the 3 of them are saying no such thing happened.
Unless conversations were recorded then I can't see where Sevco go from here? They have no case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[brog]

I don't think anything specific would need to be produced - the board will have been able to reasonably assume that the agent who ordinarily has acted for them with full authority is also acting on their behalf on this occasion. I'm sure the conversation would have had to be clear what he was asking for his clients. As you say though there's been nothing much coming out that contradicts the Rangers view of events other than a statement that they did not resign. The legal argument will be a technical one on what exactly was said in the initial meeting and whether or not the request for reversal of that means they did not in fact resign.

Sounds a bit like the old joke, so apart from the assassination did you enjoy the play Mrs Lincoln! There's really only one thing that matters & that is whether they resigned or not. The statement from the Ibrox 3 directly contradicts Sevco's statement on that point & they have explained why they don't want to comment further on King's novella at this point. The onus will be on Sevco to prove they resigned. Without that proof, the supposed request for reversal ( you're once again taking the Sevco statement as fact ) won't even enter the equation.

[ColinNish]

And Rangers made clear he did, then wanted to change it...there's the quandary to sort out. Warburton and his agent could give more detail of course because Rangers did go into a fair bit on when various meetings took place and what was discussed.

If I was raging about my employer making stuff up to get rid of me I think I'd be all over it.

Because their lawyers will have told them to keep quiet. I'm not sure why you can't see that.

You keep going on about the only statement of facts we've had is from the Huns - if you believe that, well then.....

[Andy74]

Sounds a bit like the old joke, so apart from the assassination did you enjoy the play Mrs Lincoln! There's really only one thing that matters & that is whether they resigned or not. The statement from the Ibrox 3 directly contradicts Sevco's statement on that point & they have explained why they don't want to comment further on King's novella at this point. The onus will be on Sevco to prove they resigned. Without that proof, the supposed request for reversal ( you're once again taking the Sevco statement as fact ) won't even enter the equation.

D'you know, I don't even care, just an interesting legal discussion to pass the time!

Agree important thing is whether he resigned or not, at the moment though I'm seeing more detail that suggests he did than not but we will see, or we won't. :greengrin

[silverhibee]

You can resign verbally.


Are Warburton Weir & McParland all represented by the same agent, if not then how can Warburton's agent speak for the other 2.

[blackpoolhibs]

Football managers don't resign on a monday, and continue to work at their desk until friday.

That just does not happen, i'd imagine like Fergie did and announce he was leaving at the end of the season might happen, but this scenario at hunsville is just not going to happen IMO.

[ColinNish]

D'you know, I don't even care, just an interesting legal discussion to pass the time!

Agree important thing is whether he resigned or not, at the moment though I'm seeing more detail that suggests he did than not but we will see, or we won't. :greengrin

Did you believe the detail about all the Hun players getting assaulted after the SC final?

[Skol]

Football managers don't resign on a monday, and continue to work at their desk until friday.

That just does not happen, i'd imagine like Fergie did and announce he was leaving at the end of the season might happen, but this scenario at hunsville is just not going to happen IMO.

Thats it exactly. The conversation is likely to have been along the lines of if my clients have another job, will they be allowed to resign with no compensation, probably with previous conversations about removing them and compensation. Essentially a win/win outcome for both parties. This will have been held while Notts Forest were sniffing around. Rangers were happy to wait for this to resolve having agreed to waive compensation. However when Forest decided not to appoint Warburton Rangers then moved the goalposts and claimed a resignation.

Unless the agent has boobed big time then Rangers are going to have a hard time proving their case

[jacomo]

One thing we know from Green's failure to get King to cover his legal costs (a ludicrous decision) is that Warbs will be up against more than just the law.


Don't agree with this.

Green was trying it on - of course he wanted Sevco to cover his legal costs in case of any difficulties (even after he left the club) but it seems like a ludicrously onerous clause to me.

[CyberSauzee]

Thats it exactly. The conversation is likely to have been along the lines of if my clients have another job, will they be allowed to resign with no compensation, probably with previous conversations about removing them and compensation. Essentially a win/win outcome for both parties. This will have been held while Notts Forest were sniffing around. Rangers were happy to wait for this to resolve having agreed to waive compensation. However when Forest decided not to appoint Warburton Rangers then moved the goalposts and claimed a resignation.

Unless the agent has boobed big time then Rangers are going to have a hard time proving their case

Exactly this. A great summary.

[Dashing Bob S]

Nobody really knows and won't for sure until it comes up in court. But Rangers have long been displaying corruption and incompetence in equal measure, which is never good. So my money would be on Mark (notice name change from 'Warburton') and his lawyers to take them to the cleaners. And then the board to find a way of passing the incurred costs onto the club's utterly hapless supporters.

[Andy74]

Did you believe the detail about all the Hun players getting assaulted after the SC final?

I think its a wee bit different but no I didn't of course - there was also plenty evidence to the contrary as frankly I couldn't have told you at the game or after it what happened with their players but was able to make a judgment later. Lots of people were very keen to point out the inaccuracies of it in detail afterwards of course so it didn't stand.

If the agent or Warburton would like to cover what they believe happened at the meetings that would of course help - I don't see that saying the bare minimum helps legally, if anything it looks like a brief statement intentionally because they can't argue with most of it but want to set up the technicality of the resignation. Which is fair enough, that's what's important.

For balance Warburton also said this of Rangers conduct after the cup final:

'I thought Rangers acted tremendously well, very professionally. There’s police cases going on so I can’t really comment but I was very pleased with the way the club looked after the staff'

[Andy74]

Exactly this. A great summary.

Great summary of what? It's a summary of a conversation made up through guesswork isn't it?

We have a statement from people who we think were involved in the meetings. Would be good to get another one from the other parties to compare of course but much as Rangers have some previous it still gets us closer than what some randoms think happened?

[Jim44]

Nobody really knows and won't for sure until it comes up in court. But Rangers have long been displaying corruption and incompetence in equal measure, which is never good. So my money would be on Mark (notice name change from 'Warburton') and his lawyers to take them to the cleaners. And then the board to find a way of passing the incurred costs onto the club's utterly hapless supporters.

Do you really believe this is going to end up in court? Sevco won't want to go to court as it contributes to their poor status in the eyes of UEFA and future participation in European competitions. Warburton may be making noises just now but I don't think he will have an appetite to go to court which could drag on for ages and might possibly prejudice his reputation among future employers. A quick out of court settlement will be a compromise which will allow him to move his career on.

[HoboHarry]

Great summary of what? It's a summary of a conversation made up through guesswork isn't it?

We have a statement from people who we think were involved in the meetings. Would be good to get another one from the other parties to compare of course but much as Rangers have some previous it still gets us closer than what some randoms think happened?
No it does not, not even close and you must be seriously bored to keep this discussion going to the extent that you have. We only have one side of the story and that from someone who was called an out and out liar in a court of law by a judge so there is no credibility there. Absolutely none. Most of us would recognize that.

Also - if you genuinely had law training then you of all people should understand why the three former employees are staying quiet. If, as has been suggested, they have retained high level legal counsel then I would expect there to be a fairly decisive action forthcoming.

[Andy74]

No it does not, not even close and you must be seriously bored to keep this discussion going to the extent that you have. We only have one side of the story and that from someone who was called an out and out liar in a court of law by a judge so there is no credibility there. Absolutely none. Most of us would recognize that.

Also - if you genuinely had law training then you of all people should understand why the three former employees are staying quiet. If, as has been suggested, they have retained high level legal counsel then I would expect there to be a fairly decisive action forthcoming.

I'm afraid a statement from a party involved does get us close, regardless of what you think of them, until someone provides an alternative view that is valid that we can also judge on its merits.

I do understand why the three are quiet on this, I can see it as a play on the technicality around how the resignation was delivered and accepted. If the meetings didn't happen and the offer was totally made up then there's nothing lost in them saying that - the fact the statement was made the way it was says a lot.

[JeMeSouviens]

My uneducated guess is that the New Huns were desperate to get rid and are chancing their arm. If they're heading for admin, Warbs & co will only get p in £ anyway.

[Moulin Yarns]

Great summary of what? It's a summary of a conversation made up through guesswork isn't it?

We have a statement from people who we think were involved in the meetings. Would be good to get another one from the other parties to compare of course but much as Rangers have some previous it still gets us closer than what some randoms think happened?

Happy to oblige


Much has been said over the last few days relating to our departure from Rangers Football Club. At this stage, for legal reasons, it is inappropriate for us to comment in any great detail on our departure from the club. However, given that the club has seen fit to make detailed public statements, it is important that we should clarify certain matters and as such we would like to formally place on record, that at no stage did we resign from our positions at Rangers.

"It is a matter of surprise to us, and to the League Managers Association (LMA), which is advising all three of us, that despite its detailed public statements, the club has not answered key questions put to it by the LMA, in writing, requesting an explanation of why it suggested that we resigned from our positions - See more at: http://leaguemanagers.com/news/lma-latest/warburton--weir-and-mcparland-statement/#sthash.aCTYZYNk.dpuf

[HoboHarry]

I'm afraid a statement from a party involved does get us close, regardless of what you think of them, until someone provides an alternative view that is valid that we can also judge on its merits.

I do understand why the three are quiet on this, I can see it as a play on the technicality around how the resignation was delivered and accepted. If the meetings didn't happen and the offer was totally made up then there's nothing lost in them saying that - the fact the statement was made the way it was says a lot.
It only gets you close when you are choosing to dogmatically believe one side as opposed to looking at all of the surrounding factors. Anyway, it seems to me that you are keeping up a strictly one sided view simply for the sake of it so I am out and I will leave you to argue with others.

[Skol]

I'm afraid a statement from a party involved does get us close, regardless of what you think of them, until someone provides an alternative view that is valid that we can also judge on its merits.

I do understand why the three are quiet on this, I can see it as a play on the technicality around how the resignation was delivered and accepted. If the meetings didn't happen and the offer was totally made up then there's nothing lost in them saying that - the fact the statement was made the way it was says a lot.

ON that basis then it must be true that every player was assaulted by marauding hibbies

[Moulin Yarns]

I found this on an interesting website about resignations



Employers should also take care as to the difference between an ‘intention to resign’ and actual resignation. If an employee sets out to the employer that they may resign sometime in the future, the Employment Tribunal may consider this as merely an intention rather than an actual resignation. Employers should always consider the wording (or spoken terms) of any resignation to ensure it will constitute a valid resignation. If the employer is in doubt, then they should seek clarity from the employee.


Care should always be taken when either an employer or employee decides to terminate the working relationship. Parties should be clear and concise and make reference to the termination date when the relationship will cease. Good practice is for any termination by the employee to be in writing. The resignation should always come from the employee themselves and not through an agent or third party. If there is a resignation by a third party on behalf of the employee, the Employment Tribunal may find (depending on the circumstances of the case) that there has been no resignation by the employee.

[northstandhibby]

On the contrary I think its naïve to think that an agent would not be able to discuss matters with the club with full authority.

We have a narrative from Rangers about a clear discussion about resignation and an alleged agreement on the terms, which were accepted - if you don't believe it that's fine because we weren't there but what is your guesswork on a very different conversation based on?

Andy a mere discussion of resignation is not in itself a formal tendering of it. The second part is contentious indeed. A verbal agreement in absence of witnesses or paperwork is when disputed at the very least ambiguous in this specific case. Without any concrete evidence of signed documents or witnesses other than one hun director and one party disputing the facts in this case with Warburton et al stating very clearly they didn't resign, then is it really a surprise to you most folk on here think the huns will either have to pay up or face a court case of which appears thin indeed for them.

glory glory

[Dashing Bob S]

Do you really believe this is going to end up in court? Sevco won't want to go to court as it contributes to their poor status in the eyes of UEFA and future participation in European competitions. Warburton may be making noises just now but I don't think he will have an appetite to go to court which could drag on for ages and might possibly prejudice his reputation among future employers. A quick out of court settlement will be a compromise which will allow him to move his career on.

On reflection, I think you are correct and the likelihood of a court case is pretty slim. But it depends on the greed and intransigence of both parties, and the advice they get from lawyers.

[Kato]

Did you believe the detail about all the Hun players getting assaulted after the SC final?

It was pretty detailed so it must be true.

[Mr White]

And Rangers made clear he did, then wanted to change it...there's the quandary to sort out. Warburton and his agent could give more detail of course because Rangers did go into a fair bit on when various meetings took place and what was discussed.

If I was raging about my employer making stuff up to get rid of me I think I'd be all over it.

Given the relationship between the football club and the Scottish media I'd say Warburton would be foolish to take that approach.

Mind you he signed Rob Kiernan so it's fair game to question his judgement I suppose.

[tamig]

Andy a mere discussion of resignation is not in itself a formal tendering of it. The second part is contentious indeed. A verbal agreement in absence of witnesses or paperwork is when disputed at the very least ambiguous in this specific case. Without any concrete evidence of signed documents or witnesses other than one hun director and one party disputing the facts in this case with Warburton et al stating very clearly they didn't resign, then is it really a surprise to you most folk on here think the huns will either have to pay up or face a court case of which appears thin indeed for them.

glory glory
I think Golden Fleece's post backs that up nicely.

[CyberSauzee]

Great summary of what? It's a summary of a conversation made up through guesswork isn't it?

We have a statement from people who we think were involved in the meetings. Would be good to get another one from the other parties to compare of course but much as Rangers have some previous it still gets us closer than what some randoms think happened?

"A statement from people we think were involved in meetings."

So you're guessing at this!

My earlier post simply agreed with skol's post; I think that is what happened.

Given that the facts we know are:

A statement from the Rangers said the Ibrox 3 resigned.

A statement from the Ibrox 3 said "at no time did we resign our positions at Rangers".

The only other certain facts are that DK said resignations were accepted on the Monday. All 3 worked until 9pm Friday night.

Given all that, my view is they did not resign. My opinion, based on the facts I know.

[Andy74]

I think Golden Fleece's post backs that up nicely.

It does if the suggestion is that a general discussion took place. As far as we have been told (for what that is worth) the discussion was more substantial than that and an actual offer to resign was made and accepted.

We now have a denial of that although not in any detail. The initial statements of what happened and when were quite detailed.

I'm still in the middle, it depends entirely of who can come up with what about that initial offer - I am just confused as to why quite so many appear to know that Warburton is right and that Rangers made up their version, or are more inclined to take a pure guess as to what was said without reference to statements from those there.

If I was to be pushed just now I think Rangers version is one I can follow. I'd be interested to hear what Warburton thought his agent had offered or agreed though.

[Andy74]

"A statement from people we think were involved in meetings."

So you're guessing at this!

My earlier post simply agreed with skol's post; I think that is what happened.

Given that the facts we know are:

A statement from the Rangers said the Ibrox 3 resigned.

A statement from the Ibrox 3 said "at no time did we resign our positions at Rangers".

The only other certain facts are that DK said resignations were accepted on the Monday. All 3 worked until 9pm Friday night.

Given all that, my view is they did not resign. My opinion, based on the facts I know.

Not really, those are the facts from what we've heard that you are choosing to present.

I'm not really guessing about the meeting - the Rangers board made a statement about the meeting and the offer from the agent. Despite Rangers previous I haven't heard anything as yet to say this was a complete fabrication.

The resignations do appear to have been accepted on the Monday but you appear to be missing quite a chunk of useful info about the request to reverse that and the time that the Rangers board took to consider this and respond. We also don't know following that if the acceptance had any agreed time for it to take effect.

Warburton has refuted this, that's the interesting bit of course and we will see at some stage hopefully what he bases that on.

Your assertion though from all this that there was no resignation is odd given that you won't really accept my position that we don't really know based on quite a bit more than the one line Warburton has committed so far.

[Hibs Class]

I'm afraid a statement from a party involved does get us close, regardless of what you think of them, until someone provides an alternative view that is valid that we can also judge on its merits.

I do understand why the three are quiet on this, I can see it as a play on the technicality around how the resignation was delivered and accepted. If the meetings didn't happen and the offer was totally made up then there's nothing lost in them saying that - the fact the statement was made the way it was says a lot.

A statement from a party involved might get you close. How close will depend on how much credence you give that statement. If you believe that the person giving that statement has a history of misleading statements, and has been judged in court to be a glib and shameless liar, the chances are you would do the prudent thing and hold off rushing into a judgement until more reliable evidence was provided.

[Andy74]

A statement from a party involved might get you close. How close will depend on how much credence you give that statement. If you believe that the person giving that statement has a history of misleading statements, and has been judged in court to be a glib and shameless liar, the chances are you would do the prudent thing and hold off rushing into a judgement until more reliable evidence was provided.

Yep agree and something on this scale you would expect would be quite easy to rebuke for agent and the staff - the fact they are looking like arguing a technicality rather than whether the whole thing happened or not to me suggests they can't really challenge the overall statement of events but we will see if there is more to come.

I don't buy the 'can't say anything thing on legal grounds' argument just yet. Their case wouldn't be harmed by saying something about it if it was pure fabrication. Their advice not to say anything on it however can be read that they need to be very careful on this one as they are trying to extricate a way out of something that happened.

[GreenPJ]

Not really, those are the facts from what we've heard that you are choosing to present.

I'm not really guessing about the meeting - the Rangers board made a statement about the meeting and the offer from the agent. Despite Rangers previous I haven't heard anything as yet to say this was a complete fabrication.

The resignations do appear to have been accepted on the Monday but you appear to be missing quite a chunk of useful info about the request to reverse that and the time that the Rangers board took to consider this and respond. We also don't know following that if the acceptance had any agreed time for it to take effect.

Warburton has refuted this, that's the interesting bit of course and we will see at some stage hopefully what he bases that on.

Your assertion though from all this that there was no resignation is odd given that you won't really accept my position that we don't really know based on quite a bit more than the one line Warburton has committed so far.

Assuming a conversation had been had with a representative of the 3 with a member of the Rangers board then I struggle to see how Rangers or the Ibrox rebels can expect any discussion could be binding without getting in writing a) the resignation and b) the terms associated with that (i.e Rangers don't want compensation and the 3 won't claim constructive dismissal or some other form that would generate them a pay-off).

[northstandhibby]

Not really, those are the facts from what we've heard that you are choosing to present.

I'm not really guessing about the meeting - the Rangers board made a statement about the meeting and the offer from the agent. Despite Rangers previous I haven't heard anything as yet to say this was a complete fabrication.

The resignations do appear to have been accepted on the Monday but you appear to be missing quite a chunk of useful info about the request to reverse that and the time that the Rangers board took to consider this and respond. We also don't know following that if the acceptance had any agreed time for it to take effect.

Warburton has refuted this, that's the interesting bit of course and we will see at some stage hopefully what he bases that on.

Your assertion though from all this that there was no resignation is odd given that you won't really accept my position that we don't really know based on quite a bit more than the one line Warburton has committed so far.

I think you've read the hun statement literally without scrutinising the key words Andy.

I refer to the sentence worded by King stating - The outcome of this meeting was that the agent subsequently offered that Mark, David and Frank would resign with immediate effect without compensation as long as the club, in turn, agreed to waive compensation from any new club that they signed for.

The key word is 'would' resign. At that point they hadn't yet offered formal resignation.

The board then according to King immediately terminated their employment.

Therefore they were effectively sacked as the board had failed to contact the trio or their agent stating they had accepted the alleged verbal agreement upon which the agent allegedly stated they 'would' then resign.

The trio were not given the opportunity to formally resign according to the statement as the hun board took matters into their own hands according to King's statement.

That is a known fact upon which the hun board reneged on the alleged agreement of agreeing to it whereupon the trio 'would' then tender their resignations.

glory glory

[Andy74]

I think you've read the hun statement literally without scrutinising the key words Andy.

I refer to the sentence worded by King stating - The outcome of this meeting was that the agent subsequently offered that Mark, David and Frank would resign with immediate effect without compensation as long as the club, in turn, agreed to waive compensation from any new club that they signed for.

The key word is 'would' resign. At that point they hadn't yet offered formal resignation.

The board then according to King immediately terminated their employment.

Therefore they were effectively sacked as the board had failed to contact the trio or their agent stating they had accepted the alleged verbal agreement upon which the agent allegedly stated they 'would' then resign.

That is a known fact upon which the hun board reneged on the alleged agreement of agreeing to it whereupon the trio 'would' then tender their resignations.

glory glory

I've evidently scrutinised it further than you!

You would need to read on where it is a bit clearer (if you give credence to any of it) that the agreement to waive compensation was given and termination agreed. The offer the way worded there was not subject to the event that they took up a job only that the compensation would be waived if they went on to get a new role.

The 'would' bit was satisfied by the agreement to waive being given. (again if you believe any of this happened at all).

[brog]

It only gets you close when you are choosing to dogmatically believe one side as opposed to looking at all of the surrounding factors. Anyway, it seems to me that you are keeping up a strictly one sided view simply for the sake of it so I am out and I will leave you to argue with others.

I agree, I think Andy's on the verge of replying/arguing with his own posts just to keep this going!

[Andy74]

I agree, I think Andy's on the verge of replying/arguing with his own posts just to keep this going!

Until such times as you all say, you're right, it does look like an attempt has been made to resign and now Warburton is trying to slink his way out with some compo because he didn't get the other gig then yes, it's still going!

I don't think its quite as clear as yet until the detail of the agent offer is known but really, Warburton used to think he had a magic hat, now he doesn't think he resigned. he has previous too. :greengrin

[Skol]

Until such times as you all say, you're right, it does look like an attempt has been made to resign and now Warburton is trying to slink his way out with some compo because he didn't get the other gig then yes, it's still going!

I don't think its quite as clear as yet until the detail of the agent offer is known but really, Warburton used to think he had a magic hat, now he doesn't think he resigned. he has previous too. :greengrin

You cant attempt to resign, you either do or you dont

It would appear that there was an attempt to explore the terms acceptable to both parties of a resignation. Whether there was a resignation or not, only a small number of people actually know.

Warburton for obvious reasons is saying nothing. Rangers would be well advised to say no more as they may already have said enough to throw doubt on their own claims

[northstandhibby]

I've evidently scrutinised it further than you!

You would need to read on where it is a bit clearer (if you give credence to any of it) that the agreement to waive compensation was given and termination agreed. The offer the way worded there was not subject to the event that they took up a job only that the compensation would be waived if they went on to get a new role.

The 'would' bit was satisfied by the agreement to waive being given. (again if you believe any of this happened at all).

Agreed within the confines of the board it reads only Andy?

It reads that the board took immediate action of terminating their employment in absence of formal resignations tendered. The statement is deliberately vague on that crucial issue which I repeat again the most important question any Judge would ponder upon is - Did the trio formally submit their resignations.

The agent stated they 'would' upon an alleged verbal agreement being agreed upon by the board.

Did the board give assurances to the agent and the trio of agreeing to any alleged verbal agreement whereupon the trio would have formally submitted their resignations or did the board take it upon themselves in absence of formal resignations.

There are important unknowns related to the Kinghun statement.

On the other hand the trio have straightforwardly stated they did not formally resign

glory glory

[J-C]

It looks like Warburton knew his time was coming to an end and if a job became available, he wanted to know the Rangers board wouldn't ask for compo and allow him to move with no hassle, Rangers have seen this as him resigning and jumped the gun and announced it, they're hoping he goes quietly as he was at loggerheads with the board anyway.

[Big L]

I found this on an interesting website about resignations

Rangers have not claimed that Warburton & Co resigned face to face, Rangers have not claimed to have received anything in writing from Warbs&co or their agent re resigning. Rangers don't have a leg to stand on!

[ColinNish]

Here's a different slant to the story.


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/sevco-reaches-peak-shambles/

[tamig]

It does if the suggestion is that a general discussion took place. As far as we have been told (for what that is worth) the discussion was more substantial than that and an actual offer to resign was made and accepted.

We now have a denial of that although not in any detail. The initial statements of what happened and when were quite detailed.

I'm still in the middle, it depends entirely of who can come up with what about that initial offer - I am just confused as to why quite so many appear to know that Warburton is right and that Rangers made up their version, or are more inclined to take a pure guess as to what was said without reference to statements from those there.

If I was to be pushed just now I think Rangers version is one I can follow. I'd be interested to hear what Warburton thought his agent had offered or agreed though.
The hun board have previous so far as fabricated statements are concerned. The exited 3 have the LMA involved now so I'm sure some actual facts will emerge over the coming days/weeks. I,however, will treat any statement released by King, Traynor and co with deep suspicion.

[Eyrie]

I've read Andy74's repeated attempts to portray the official Sevco version as fact on here and I'm now so thoroughly convinced by his arguments that I hope he turns out to be Sevco's legal advisor :greengrin

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

D'you know, I don't even care, just an interesting legal discussion to pass the time!

You've just made that up! ;-)

[ehf]

You've just made that up! ;-)

He doesn't care but has spent most of the last two days essentially defending Sevco/King's position:confused:

It's obvious there were no resignations. No agent would be stupid enough to do that and if he had, the trio would be suing him, not Sevco.

King decided after the Ross County game that Warburton had to go and has tried to manipulate the situation in his usual shameless, despicable manner. He won't get away with it, though.

From a legal perspective, there is no credible basis to argue that the trio actually resigned. There might have been an argument that agreement had been reached that they would resign on certain terms. But King's statement blows that out of the water by claiming actual resignation. He has shot himself in his loathsome foot.

[Andy74]

He doesn't care but has spent most of the last two days essentially defending Sevco/King's position:confused:

It's obvious there were no resignations. No agent would be stupid enough to do that and if he had, the trio would be suing him, not Sevco.

King decided after the Ross County game that Warburton had to go and has tried to manipulate the situation in his usual shameless, despicable manner. He won't get away with it, though.

From a legal perspective, there is no credible basis to argue that the trio actually resigned. There might have been an argument that agreement had been reached that they would resign on certain terms. But King's statement blows that out of the water by claiming actual resignation. He has shot himself in his loathsome foot.

People think my view is odd (despite saying we don't know and it will be up to a legal argument) yet you think it is more sensible to come and say the position is obvious?!

The rest of your post is just made up and is pretty incorrect on the way the law works as well. I think too many watch TV programmes and think court cases are decided on bits of paper with writing on it or nothing can be proven.

As it stands they aren't employed anymore, the club said he has resigned, it will be up to Warburton to claim in the tribunal that he didn't.

For those that think just a theoretical discussion took place on possibly resigning (which is guesswork again) there's also some grounds that it wouldn't make any odds. There is case precedent at tribunal where an employee suggested he would resign if he got another job, which he didn't and tried to stay - the employer decided to take the resignation as having been delivered. The tribunal agreed that he didn't actually resign but agree that the employer nevertheless had grounds to terminate his employment. It was also upheld on appeal.

I suspect if any other club had the made the statement it would be accepted. I'm looking past it being Rangers at this stage until there's some other credible angle to go against it. At the moment Warburton's assertion he didn't resign is part of the story but doesn't give any detail as to why he thinks that is.

[ColinNish]

People think my view is odd (despite saying we don't know and it will be up to a legal argument) yet you think it is more sensible to come and say the position is obvious?!

The rest of your post is just made up and is pretty incorrect on the way the law works as well. I think too many watch TV programmes and think court cases are decided on bits of paper with writing on it or nothing can be proven.

As it stands they aren't employed anymore, the club said he has resigned, it will be up to Warburton to claim in the tribunal that he didn't.

For those that think just a theoretical discussion took place on possibly resigning (which is guesswork again) there's also some grounds that it wouldn't make any odds. There is case precedent at tribunal where an employee suggested he would resign if he got another job, which he didn't and tried to stay - the employer decided to take the resignation as having been delivered. The tribunal agreed that he didn't actually resign but agree that the employer nevertheless had grounds to terminate his employment. It was also upheld on appeal.

I suspect if any other club had the made the statement it would be accepted. I'm looking past it being Rangers at this stage until there's some other credible angle to go against it. At the moment Warburton's assertion he didn't resign is part of the story but doesn't give any detail as to why he thinks that is.
I doubt any other club would make a statement like that. Shambles of a club, from top to bottom.

[Skol]

I wouldnt be surprised if it transpires that after the initial exploratory discussions with the agent, Rangers being aware of the Forest interest were not so eager to agree and were looking for compensation. Forest were unwilling to pay. They then decide on an interim appointment with a pretty decent chance that Warburton and Co are free by the end of the season.

As soon as the Forest compo was out the window, King decided he would accept the resignations.

[northstandhibby]

People think my view is odd (despite saying we don't know and it will be up to a legal argument) yet you think it is more sensible to come and say the position is obvious?!

The rest of your post is just made up and is pretty incorrect on the way the law works as well. I think too many watch TV programmes and think court cases are decided on bits of paper with writing on it or nothing can be proven.

As it stands they aren't employed anymore, the club said he has resigned, it will be up to Warburton to claim in the tribunal that he didn't.

For those that think just a theoretical discussion took place on possibly resigning (which is guesswork again) there's also some grounds that it wouldn't make any odds. There is case precedent at tribunal where an employee suggested he would resign if he got another job, which he didn't and tried to stay - the employer decided to take the resignation as having been delivered. The tribunal agreed that he didn't actually resign but agree that the employer nevertheless had grounds to terminate his employment. It was also upheld on appeal.

I suspect if any other club had the made the statement it would be accepted. I'm looking past it being Rangers at this stage until there's some other credible angle to go against it. At the moment Warburton's assertion he didn't resign is part of the story but doesn't give any detail as to why he thinks that is.

You've changed your narrative though Andy. You're now making an argument that despite no formal resignations tendered then it 'might' have been reasonable under certain circumstances to interpret resignations were submitted in absence of what is considered normal resignation process.

Could you post a link to the full reasons given by the tribunal you refer to Andy. It would help strengthen the points you allude to if it was as simplistic as you make out?

glory glory

[grunt]

The rest of your post is just made up ... Surely you can see that there's a difference between "made up" and "surmised based on the available evidence"?


The rest of your post is ... pretty incorrect on the way the law works as well.

As it stands they aren't employed anymore, the club said he has resigned, it will be up to Warburton to claim in the tribunal that he didn't.Really? Up to Warburton to prove he didn't resign? Not up to King to prove that he did? Is that the way the law works?

I would think it would be very difficult for Warburton to prove he didn't do something.

[Moulin Yarns]

You've changed your narrative though Andy. You're now making an argument that despite no formal resignations tendered then it 'might' have been reasonable under certain circumstances to interpret resignations were submitted in absence of what is considered normal resignation process.

Could you post a link to the full reasons given by the tribunal you refer to Andy. It would help strengthen the points you allude to if it was as simplistic as you make out?

glory glory

I'll save him the bother. It is on the same page I quoted from.


https://www.dallasmcmillan.co.uk/Blog/Employment-law/when-is-a-resignation-a-resignation-did-mark-warburton-resign-from-rangers.html




An example of an intention to resign may be when an employee approaches the employer to say that there is the possibility of the employee finding alternative work. In the case of Ely v YKK Fasteners (UK) Ltd 1994 ICR 164, an employee was looking to leave for an alternative job in Australia. The employee told the employer that they would be resigning in the near future although no date was provided. The job in Australia fell through and wished to stay. The employer decided that the employee had resigned. The Employment Tribunal held that there had been no resignation as no termination date was provided and one could not be established from the facts of the case. However, the Tribunal decided that the employer genuinely expected the employee to resign and that the resignation would be supplied in a few days. The Tribunal found that while there was no resignation, there was a dismissal for ‘some other substantial reason’. The Employment Tribunal’s decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal.


I would argue there is a difference in that, in the case of TRIFC v Warburton et al. the employer decided the employees had resigned in the full knowledge that no resignation was imminent as they were aware that the job offer had fallen through. Whether it would be found to be the same in court is what we don't know.

[MrSmith]

I guess its one of these situation no one knows what went on, just those involved. I'd hazard a guess at the trio's representatives/agents having precursory talks with the Rangers board in order to come to some agreement re exiting to suit all parties. However and given the nature of both parties, couldn't come to an agreement and the sword fighting or stand off began. I believe neither party nor much of the scenarios being penned by the media. At the end of the day it will come down to simplicity in providing evidence pertaining to formal written resignation or the Rangers are lying. I don't think any of us need to get bent out of shape over their adventures, just sit back and enjoy the courtroom twitter updates :cb

[northstandhibby]

I'll save him the bother. It is on the same page I quoted from.


https://www.dallasmcmillan.co.uk/Blog/Employment-law/when-is-a-resignation-a-resignation-did-mark-warburton-resign-from-rangers.html





I would argue there is a difference in that, in the case of TRIFC v Warburton et al. the employer decided the employees had resigned in the full knowledge that no resignation was imminent as they were aware that the job offer had fallen through. Whether it would be found to be the same in court is what we don't know.]

There is a great deal confirmed by the information contained within the link you kindly provided to assume the trio would win their case. I won't have time to look over the specific case referred to until later tonight. There is a great deal of ambiguity caused by the hun board relying on third party verbal conversing and bypassing confirming the situation with the trio.

It appears clear in absence of formal resignation tendered set out by Warburton et al and a third party conversation being the catalyst for rhe hun board to effectively remove them from their positions then a Judge would have no option but to rule against the defenders in this case.

The link you posted strengthens the case against the huns board.

glory glory

[brog]

People think my view is odd (despite saying we don't know and it will be up to a legal argument) yet you think it is more sensible to come and say the position is obvious?!

The rest of your post is just made up and is pretty incorrect on the way the law works as well. I think too many watch TV programmes and think court cases are decided on bits of paper with writing on it or nothing can be proven.

As it stands they aren't employed anymore, the club said he has resigned, it will be up to Warburton to claim in the tribunal that he didn't.

For those that think just a theoretical discussion took place on possibly resigning (which is guesswork again) there's also some grounds that it wouldn't make any odds. There is case precedent at tribunal where an employee suggested he would resign if he got another job, which he didn't and tried to stay - the employer decided to take the resignation as having been delivered. The tribunal agreed that he didn't actually resign but agree that the employer nevertheless had grounds to terminate his employment. It was also upheld on appeal.

I suspect if any other club had the made the statement it would be accepted. I'm looking past it being Rangers at this stage until there's some other credible angle to go against it. At the moment Warburton's assertion he didn't resign is part of the story but doesn't give any detail as to why he thinks that is.


Absolute nonsense! For a start there is no certainty this will go to a Tribunal. IIRC a person has to be employed for 2 years before they can call in a Tribunal for unfair dismissal. Let's just take your statement to an extreme though. In this case The Rangers are saying 3 employees have resigned & as such they are no longer employed. Let's just imagine an unscrupulous employer decided he needed to get rid of 1690 workers. He advises they have all resigned & as a result all 1690 have to prove they have not. Aye right, or perhaps Aye Ready! Time for a lie down Andy.

[Moulin Yarns]

]

There is a great deal confirmed by the information contained within the link you kindly provided to assume the trio would win their case. I won't have time to look over the specific case referred to until later tonight. There is a great deal of ambiguity caused by the hun board relying on third party verbal conversing and bypassing confirming the situation with the trio.

It appears clear in absence of formal resignation tendered set out by Warburton et al and a third party conversation being the catalyst for rhe hun board to effectively remove them from their positions then a Judge would have no option but to rule against the defenders in this case.

The link you posted strengthens the case against the huns board.

glory glory

The reason for the tribunal finding for the employer was the time between 'intimating he wanted to leave' and the notification of the change of mind, September to December. A wee bit different from Monday to Thursday :wink:


In September 1988, the employee was offered employment in Australia and told the employer he would be resigning. In December 1988, the employee told the employer that he no longer wished to emigrate to Australia. The employer treated the employment as terminated. The employee complained that he had been unfairly dismissed.

An industrial tribunal decided that the reason for the dismissal had been the employee's late notification of his change of mind and that that reason represented 'some other substantial reason of a kind such as to justify the dismissal' for the purposes of section 57(1)(b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.

[J-C]

If Warburton and Co have in fact changed their minds after advising Rangers they wanted to leave, then more fool them but if their agent was just sounding out the board re dropping compensation for them if another job became available, then Rangers have jumped the gun. As yet we don't really know all the details of who said what to who and what was actually said.

[northstandhibby]

The reason for the tribunal finding for the employer was the time between 'intimating he wanted to leave' and the notification of the change of mind, September to December. A wee bit different from Monday to Thursday :wink:


Additionally just from a cursory glance the circumstances contrast from the trio. The employee had informed the employer directly he had been offered another post and was resigning in due course on the basis of it.

The trio in contrast had no such job offer and it was third party conversing that was the hun board reasoning.

Its appears too remote from this specific situation concerning the managerial team at a football club to produce as a similar precedent.

But Andy has certainly been keeping us awake with his sharp counter arguments.

glory glory

[greenginger]

Even the Daily Ranger seems to be suggesting Sevco have a weak position.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/comment-rangers-enter-legal-minefield-9834675

[A Hi-Bee]

As a Hibs supporter I personally don’t give 2 flying f88ks what happens with this odious so called institution and would hope that whatever they are called now or in the future or past they will always have more trouble.

[Captain Trips]

Some big names asked if they are interested in the Rangers job:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=konpF_FsXWI

[Ozyhibby]

Notts Forrest have said there was no job offer for Warburton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

I guess its one of these situation no one knows what went on, just those involved. I'd hazard a guess at the trio's representatives/agents having precursory talks with the Rangers board in order to come to some agreement re exiting to suit all parties. However and given the nature of both parties, couldn't come to an agreement and the sword fighting or stand off began. I believe neither party nor much of the scenarios being penned by the media. At the end of the day it will come down to simplicity in providing evidence pertaining to formal written resignation or the Rangers are lying. I don't think any of us need to get bent out of shape over their adventures, just sit back and enjoy the courtroom twitter updates :cb


Ditto ! On one hand you have the proven liar, King - nuff said. On the other you have Warburton, a man whose 'character' was shown for what it is when we won the Scottish Cup (still waiting on a cursory 'well done' by the way, Mark ??) You can pretty much guarantee that whatever the outcome, the truth of what actualy happened will never be known !

I only hope that this behaviour continues and the Hun eventually run out of money, go bust again but, this time, NEVER to darken our game or country again !

[WhileTheChief..]

Absolute nonsense! For a start there is no certainty this will go to a Tribunal. IIRC a person has to be employed for 2 years before they can call in a Tribunal for unfair dismissal. Let's just take your statement to an extreme though. In this case The Rangers are saying 3 employees have resigned & as such they are no longer employed. Let's just imagine an unscrupulous employer decided he needed to get rid of 1690 workers. He advises they have all resigned & as a result all 1690 have to prove they have not. Aye right, or perhaps Aye Ready! Time for a lie down Andy.

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.

Warburton doesn't have to prove anything at all, the onus is 100% on Rangers.

The LMAs lawyers also state that it is up to Rangers to prove that he resigned.

[ColinNish]

Notts Forrest have said there was no job offer for Warburton.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There wasn't. The Notts Forest job is a smokescreen. Read my link further up from Phil Mcgobbledygook. It doesn't let you copy and paste unfortunately.

[Moulin Yarns]

There wasn't. The Notts Forest job is a smokescreen. Read my link further up from Phil Mcgobbledygook. It doesn't let you copy and paste unfortunately.

took an image of it.

[ehf]

I'll save him the bother. It is on the same page I quoted from.


https://www.dallasmcmillan.co.uk/Blog/Employment-law/when-is-a-resignation-a-resignation-did-mark-warburton-resign-from-rangers.html





I would argue there is a difference in that, in the case of TRIFC v Warburton et al. the employer decided the employees had resigned in the full knowledge that no resignation was imminent as they were aware that the job offer had fallen through. Whether it would be found to be the same in court is what we don't know.

This was an unfair dismissal case and the question was whether the employer had legitimate grounds to dismiss the employee. Warburton's case is different as it will also involve wrongful dismissal/breach of contract. The main question for the court will be whether he intendeed to resign voluntarilty and relinquish the compensation to which he would have been if Sevco sacked him.

[ColinNish]

took an image of it.

Cheers

[Just Alf]

There wasn't. The Notts Forest job is a smokescreen. Read my link further up from Phil Mcgobbledygook. It doesn't let you copy and paste unfortunately.
Indeed....


The only Hat/Notts references were

1. The spoof twitter account stating Hat was getting the Notts job (the weekend prior to the Monday "resignation ")

2. Notts releasing an official statement once the brown stuff had hit the fan with their club implicated telling there was never an offer on the table.

Doesn't the above show that on balance of probability that the agent could only have been having exploratory talks and the the Hun have jumped the gun?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[Just Alf]

Unless Warburton has other offers of course!

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

[brog]

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.

Warburton doesn't have to prove anything at all, the onus is 100% on Rangers.

The LMAs lawyers also state that it is up to Rangers to prove that he resigned.

Em, you're agreeing with me! Suggest you read my post, responding to Andy's again.

[HoboHarry]

Phil Mac has an update...... if you are familiar with his writing style, his comment about recordings are interesting......

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-sevco-high-command-decides-to-play-for-time-with-the-ibrox-three/

[Mr White]

Phil Mac has an update...... if you are familiar with his writing style, his comment about recordings are interesting......

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-sevco-high-command-decides-to-play-for-time-with-the-ibrox-three/

Does he not bother to read it over before posting it? Every other sentence has a typo.

[ehf]

Phil Mac has an update...... if you are familiar with his writing style, his comment about recordings are interesting......

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-sevco-high-command-decides-to-play-for-time-with-the-ibrox-three/

:agree: he is implying the meetings were taped; if this was done without the consent of the trio/their agent (which will almost certainly be the case), they are unlikely to be admissible as evidence in the proceedings.

However, he goes on to imply that the recordings would not assist Sevco's case in any event and that certain Sevco directors might be willing to commit perjury regarding what was said. Surely not:shocked:

[Captain Trips]

:agree: he is implying the meetings were taped; if this was done without the consent of the trio/their agent (which will almost certainly be the case), they are unlikely to be admissible as evidence in the proceedings.

However, he goes on to imply that the recordings would not assist Sevco's case in any event and that certain Sevco directors might be willing to commit perjury regarding what was said. Surely not:shocked:

The recording was indeed made here it is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZvf0_2uwIg

[lapsedhibee]

Does he not bother to read it over before posting it?

Last edited by Mr White; Yesterday at 10:44 PM.

:wink:

[Keith_M]

Even the Daily Ranger seems to be suggesting Sevco have a weak position.


http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/comment-rangers-enter-legal-minefield-9834675


It's hard to believe they actually wrote this in the Record

"One would presume that Rangers took expert legal advice before issuing the statement announcing the resignation of its management team and are confident that their version of the meetings and what was agreed will stand up in court in due course.

Based on what has been placed in the public domain to date, however, this writer remains to be convinced."


Has Jabba lost control of his Puppets?

[Andy74]

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.

Warburton doesn't have to prove anything at all, the onus is 100% on Rangers.

The LMAs lawyers also state that it is up to Rangers to prove that he resigned.

Warburton will be the one going to the tribunal to prove he didn't. Onus will be on him.

The Telgraph had some decent comment in this the other day also questioning why they've failed to deny very much other than the technical resignation point.

[Mr White]

:wink:

Haha if I was claiming to be a blogger and journalist and asking people to stump up cash to support me in those endeavours I'd maybe be embarrassed by that :greengrin

[ancient hibee]

Indeed....


The only Hat/Notts references were

1. The spoof twitter account stating Hat was getting the Notts job (the weekend prior to the Monday "resignation ")

2. Notts releasing an official statement once the brown stuff had hit the fan with their club implicated telling there was never an offer on the table.

Doesn't the above show that on balance of probability that the agent could only have been having exploratory talks and the the Hun have jumped the gun?



Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk


My suspicion is that the agent was about to offer the trio to Notts with the hook that there was no compo to Rangers but missed the boat.

[northstandhibby]

Warburton will be the one going to the tribunal to prove he didn't. Onus will be on him.

The Telgraph had some decent comment in this the other day also questioning why they've failed to deny very much other than the technical resignation point.

Once Warburton et al have set out the facts of their case as Pursuers, the Defenders are obliged to lodge their opposition whereby it's incumbent on both parties setting out their positions. Additionally I would expect this case to be heard within a court hearing not by an employment tribunal. Pursuers are not normally in the business of litigating through the press.

glory glory

[HFCdeb]

Some big names asked if they are interested in the Rangers job:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=konpF_FsXWI

Sometimes I think the internet is a bad thing but then I see things like this and realise the world is a good and hilarious place.

[Onion]

My suspicion is that the agent was about to offer the trio to Notts with the hook that there was no compo to Rangers but missed the boat.

Has there ever been a similar case of a manager finding themselves out of work in this way ? No job, no compo.

If not, either the agent has been incredibly naive or Warbs has been incredibly unlucky with the Notts vacancy and having to deal with the crooked regime at Sevco.

[Andy74]

Has there ever been a similar case of a manager finding themselves out of work in this way ? No job, no compo.

If not, either the agent has been incredibly naive or Warbs has been incredibly unlucky with the Notts vacancy and having to deal with the crooked regime at Sevco.

Or he offered to resign like many other managers have and failed to reverse it when he changed his mind?

[jacomo]

It's hard to believe they actually wrote this in the Record

"One would presume that Rangers took expert legal advice before issuing the statement announcing the resignation of its management team and are confident that their version of the meetings and what was agreed will stand up in court in due course.

Based on what has been placed in the public domain to date, however, this writer remains to be convinced."


Has Jabba lost control of his Puppets?


Keith Jackson seems to have gone rogue.

Perhaps wary after being duped by Craig Whyte (his wealth being off the radar in the sense that it was nowhere to be seen). Dave King is not enjoying an easy ride right now.

[RedHibby]

I think they are trying to get money to pay Warburton off.

18089

[jacomo]

Or he offered to resign like many other managers have and failed to reverse it when he changed his mind?

How are you still pursuing this?!

[jacomo]

I think they are trying to get money to pay Warburton off.

18089


That's not real, surely?

[lapsedhibee]

Or he offered to resign like many other managers have and failed to reverse it when he changed his mind?

I thought your position was that he resigned? :confused:

[brog]

It's not nonsense, it's a fact.

Warburton doesn't have to prove anything at all, the onus is 100% on Rangers.

The LMAs lawyers also state that it is up to Rangers to prove that he resigned.

Exactly! You're agreeing with me! You need to read my post again.

[Jack Hackett]

I think they are trying to get money to pay Warburton off.

18089

I'm going to have to assume that members of the continuous credit card scheme have actually agreed to this bit of snatch and grab, but wtf!?!?

I also notice that 4 home games on the way to the semi is a 'plan'....no surprise given their recent record of home draws...lot's of nods and winks and funny handshakes all round no doubt

[RedHibby]

That's not real, surely?

I dont know if it is real or not but I would not put it past them if they are close to hitting rock bottom again.

[Callum_62]

I dont know if it is real or not but I would not put it past them if they are close to hitting rock bottom again.

Cant be real, surely

[Eyrie]

I took it to be a piss take based on both their desperate need for cash and their uncanny ability to get a home draw in the cup.

[Mr White]

Cant be real, surely

Unless The Rangers are planning on entering a round earlier next season I think it's fair to say it's not real.

Having said that they were allowed to play a semi final at ibrox 3 years ago so perhaps they're hoping for that again.

[magpie1892]

Cant be real, surely

No, it's not real.

The reason it's quite amusing is that it could so easily be real though!

[ColinNish]

Warburton will be the one going to the tribunal to prove he didn't. Onus will be on him.

The Telgraph had some decent comment in this the other day also questioning why they've failed to deny very much other than the technical resignation point.

What a load of codswallop. You've obviously never been involved in an employment tribunal. I have and the onus was on my ex employer to prove they hadn't arsed up my redundancy, no me.