Michael McGlinchey (Weston FC | Australia)

Just make a decision and fuck off...

If a player can because of a change of ownership claim I am free ... the reverse is also true a club could terminate a player on the same grounds...

Assume there was no offer on the table the PFA would say there is a contract in place...therefore the Mariners must pay his salary... 

Clubs change owners around the world and my understanding from FIFA is existing contracts cannot be ignored ...

This still has a long way to run ... 

My take on it is this: Because CCM initiated the change its essentially mutual. If CCM cancelled the contract and used that to sack WeeMac then he could fight it and force a settlement. Likewise if WeeMac decided to go to the Nix while contracted to CCM they could fight it. Because both of them decided to cancel the contract, despite one wanting it only to be temporary then it is infact mutual with one party was misled.

I guess this is my point if there was no offer on the table then I fail to see how the original contract would not be enforced ... so how or why does an offer change things...

I read [I think] that this could go to the AFC to be decided and they in turn I assume use FIFA laws... if so my understanding [ not an expert by any stretch ] but my understanding is FIFA when clubs change ownership say existing contracts remain... stopping clubs from getting rid of players and players for leaving because of a better offer as a free agent... 

As I said this has  a way to run and if I was a betting person my belief is FIFA laws would say the original contract remains in force... 

Blatter compared Man Utd to slave-owners when Cristiano Ronaldo wanted to shift to Real Madrid but his club wouldn't let him. Just sayin'

The question comes down to whether this was just a change of ownership, bought as a going concern, or if they have actually set up a "new club" like Rangers in Scotland. If it is a "new club" which is a way to avoid the debt then yes the contracts are void unless re-signed.

On the face of it, 

can't see how the original contract can remain in place, Midfielder

The original contract was between wee Mac and the original owners.

.If original contracts had any standing why all the running around getting players to sign new contracts? 

Obviously because previous contracts are null and void.

Only exclusion  I can think of would be if specific wording in the original contract outlines it would be binding in this exact scenario.

If we have signed him then presumably we are paying him. If we lose the case does he have to pay us back? Or the PFA?

Any date on arbitration? Has to happen soon if we are going to sign a plan b.

Perhaps the FFA are getting all soggy on this because its the Nix involved. If it had been WSW, they'd have issued a ruling two weeks ago.

My point is very simple ... clubs change owners all the time and FIFA have rules in place based on years of experience and heaps of legal fights between clubs / players / coaches...

My very simple understanding of FIFA regulations in these matters is no change can be made to existing contracts ... 

Further and only from what I have read MC did not contact the Mariners to discuss the issue ...

As I said I have no idea of the outcome but this looks to be heading to the AFC and they will use FIFA as their guide .. and this could take some time ..

My reasoning aside from anything else is this ... say MC was hurt in Japan and could never play again do you think because he had not signed a contract when he was overseas at the time, would allow the Mariners to not pay him... so the knife has two sides if he was hurt and the contract is valid ... why does an offer make the contract invalid ... 

As I said I see this as having a long way to run yet ... 

In this loan situation, who was paying McG, what was Japan paying CCM and or McG.  And the mutual release from the loan deal had to involve all 3 parties (was it the old CCM owner) Who at CCM has been paying him since he was released from Japan (I under stand this could have been months ago)  For The PFA to say he had no contract with the current CCM then their can only have been the old contract, this can not have had a clause in it to cover club ownership change or we would not be here now. 

The problem comparing the clubs from around the world to the A-League, is the way it is structured. Owners pay for the right to administer the clubs, I don't think they really own them. Both the Jets and Phoenix had licences taken back by the FFA and they then gave them to new 'owners' against the wishes of their current owners. You can't sell an A-League club afaik, you hand back your licence and the FFA then sell it to the new owner.

When Charlesworth took over, im sure the FFA probably would have included a condition that all players had to offered their contracts again, otherwise the PFA would be pissed. Whether a player wishes to sign his new contract is up to him.

This all makes a lot of sense. If the original contracts stood, there would not be new contracts offered to all of the players. Simple as that. McGlinchey's overall conduct since the old contracts became null (I assume) has not reasonably led CCM to believe that he had accepted new terms with them. 

I think the Mariners are quite a strong position I know if I went to court or arbitration whose position I would wanta be in.

The Mariners Case

There was at one stage a contract between MC & the club.

Under FIFA rules and regulations my understanding is after a change in ownerships the contract with players remains the same.

If for the sake of an argument MC had been injured in Japan would the Mariners have had to pay the balance of his contract and I assume yes … if injured and the contract is valid why would an offer from another club make the contract invalid.

The Mariners at no stage said on any official or non official platform that the contract was terminated.

The Mariners said very publicly when they let Flores go we have a number of players who can play 10 and I think MC name was mentioned in the players we had who could play a number 10.

The Nix never approached the Mariners before signed MC to get our opinion.

From what we are told MC never approached us.

The Nix’s case

MC unlike the other players had not signed a new contract with the new entity.

Defence against this..

The Mariners were waiting on his return to Australia so he could have local legal advice, something he could not get in Japan or get at a reasonable cost.

The Mariners were waiting for the contract in Japan to run out.

The Mariners always intended when MC returned to Australia for a new contract to be signed.

Other issues

A player was signed when there was no official clearance, and no certainty that he was a free agent, most reasonable legal folk would say some test should have been carried out.

The action of taking him to training and issuing photos of him training … a number of media releases ..

To an independent panel at the AFC these actions could be seen as aggressive and unreasonable given the Mariners saying he is our player under contract and in line with FIFA precedents.  

When the Knightz folded and NZF took them over for a few games at the end of the season and Ricki was put in charge, didn't a whole heap of players walk?

It wouldn't surprise me if, contrary to what Midfielder says, clubs are obliged to take on existing contracts under an ownership change, but players are not.

Midfielder, a poster whom I usually have a lot of time for, is here whistling in the dark, or in Ebonics, "tryin' to consolate himself by word of mouth".

Also. Intent to sign a contract when he returns is a completely different thing to signing a contract then and there. The nix have been stung like that before havnt they?

Poor Maceo Rigters. He could have been a fixture with us if he hadn't gone down the Clive Palmer wormhole.

You may be right, after looking back at our Knights highlights page for that last season....

http://plainsrangers.com/knights2006.html Some of those names I struggle to recall now. It is seven years ago I suppose.

Simple - would the "ThePFA" comment without seeing the contract/s. I doubt it. 

Would McG agent not have advised on contract/s and been in discussions on his behalf. 

I thought that's how they get their fee. 

But there are no transfer fees between A-League clubs.  So the only thing CCM can do is let him go or force him to play for them and that seems like a pretty unlikely option

Your whole argument is based on what CCM thought would happen or what they intended to do.  That's meaningless really because there are two contracting parties and quite clearly the other contracting party had no intention of staying at the Mariners.  Clearly there is more to that.  If they got other players to sign new contracts then clearly the old contracts were no longer valid.  It really seems quite simple.  Maybe there has been a little bit of sharp practice from the Phoenix but this is a contractual dispute, nothing more.

Wonder what he is up to now?

It's strange, he seems to have disappeared altogether after GCU died...

anyone else think midfielders is just making up "FIFA regs" to suit his position? First I've heard of them. 

Midfielder, you keep saying you let Flores go because you had Wee Mac. Given your club keeps repeating that they expect him back on the 1st of January, you guys never had the intention of keeping Flores because of Wee Mac. You signed Kim to a longer deal to replace Flores.

No club goes around announcing that they have to re-sign all their players, that would be daft. There was rumours about Rose using the same get out to join Sydney, so Wee mac might not be your only issue.

This is purely hypothetical but it could possibly be that Wee Mac asked to be released from the loan deal because he wasn't happy/not playing. He has then gone back to the Mariners, who said they won't pay him until Jan 1st because of their budget for meeting the salary cap. He has then gone to the PFA for their help regarding the issue. They have then looked over things and informed him that he didn't have a valid contract anymore and that in their eyes he was free to sign elsewhere if he wanted.

Top Goalscorer- own goals - 2. 

lol those were the good ol days of the knights. 

The way they keep reporting the Jan 1 reporting date in their releases makes me think this part at least is very likely.

It has been reported that he talked to Phil Moss.

I'm not sure if a similar term exists in the Standard Player Contract for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons, but the contract forcontract for 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons contained the following clause:

11.5 If the Club's Participation Agreement is terminated or if its licence to field a team in the A-League is otherwise cancelled or suspended, FFA may (without consent) novate or assign this contract to any nominee and, if requested, you must enter into an agreement with the assignee to be bound to the assignee on the terms of this Contract as if the assignee had been named in this Contract in place of the Club.

Club

is defined at the beginning of the contract as the legal entity (in our case Central Coast Mariners FC Pty Ltd), so if there was a change in licence holder (to, say, Central Coast Mariners Foundation Limited) the Mariners may be relying on this (or a similar) clause to hold McGlinchey to the remainder of his contract.

I thought the club was sold - not a forced termination of CPA as per clause 11.5

I was under the impression that he was a bit patchy for GCU, however Wikipedia says 13 goals for the season so must have been in the hunt for golden boot. Pretty good because GCU was most likely falling apart around him.

Yes.

Toto signed a Letter of Intent and then had the nerve to sign an actual contract. We got badly stung on that one.

Wikipedia is having a yarn. He only scored four goals. Don't trust everything you read on wikipedia. 

http://ultimatealeague.com/player_detail.php?playe...

To be fair Wayne Bennett could do whatever Wayne Bennett wants and the NRL/whoever would just take it. But yes, fair comparison.

Trying to talk up his own value?

Good to know anyway thought I was going mad, I remembered him not being great but thought maybe my memory was influenced by the fact that he didn't sign with the nix.

I would expect that whenever it was just a case of crossing out the name of the old license holder wherever it appears and writing in the new one, both club and player would be expected to sign something like that, and the old contract would remain in force in the meantime.

But my impression is that CCM aren't trying to rely on the old contract carrying over - it sounds like they're relying on whatever indication Wee Mac gave of his intention to sign a new one.

Which implies to me that what CCM put in front of him (eventually?) wasn't just a rollover, but had new terms and/or conditions.

Which would be an indication from CCM that they were willing to not continue with the existing terms and conditions, so Wee Mac could accept that offer to terminate by mutual consent without being bound to then accept the offer of new terms and conditions (despite CCM's assertion that they were relying on his intention to do so in making the offers).

Complete speculation of course, and about as reliable as my WC picks (which is to say not at all).