The battle between PFA Scotland and Rangers chief executive Charles Green continued yesterday with both sides issuing statements after Monday's revelation that the players' union had raised an employment tribunal claim against the Ibrox club on behalf of 67 unnamed players.

In their share issue prospectus, Rangers confirmed that PFA Scotland had raised the claims, which are to be "robustly" defended, and that former Ibrox players Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised constructive dismissal claims.

The three players were among nine who refused to transfer their contracts over to Green's company, which bought the club's assets and business after oldco Rangers, now called RFC 2012, were consigned to liquidation in June.

Loading article content

Amid much confusion, Rangers captain Lee McCulloch was the first player to distance himself from any employment tribunal via his Twitter account.

Yesterday's PFA statement explained the basis of the claim for a Protective Award "raised in the name of PFA Scotland only", saying that administrators Duff and Phelps "failed to enter into any consultation whatsoever with the players and PFA Scotland".

However, the players' union say they will drop their claim if Rangers abandon their breach of contract proceedings against their members, which will be decided by the Scottish Football Association.

The statement read: "It may be that no player will pursue this. That will simply be a matter for each player and in fact many of the players have already stated the motive for PFA Scotland in pursuing this claim has never been financial. As well as being a response to the SFA Arbitration claims, the Protective Award claim involves an important point of principle since our rights as representatives of the players were wholly disregarded by those involved in the TUPE transfer.

"PFA Scotland instructed our solicitors to write to the solicitors for the administrators and Rangers newco on July 19, 2012, stating that while PFA Scotland had the right to lodge a Protective Award claim it had no desire to do so and would abandon the claim provided certain undertakings were given, including withdrawal of the SFA Arbitration. The offer to withdraw the Protective Award claim still stands in the event of the SFA breach of contract proceedings being withdrawn against our members."