Michael McGlinchey (Weston FC | Australia)

Agreed sounds like a failure of paperwork between CCM & FFA, 

Agreed WeeMac shouldn't really sneak out the side door, 

The Seip issue is the bit that makes all this sound off to me. They can get rid of one, but another can't leave.

So from when the license was supposed to transfer and July 18th they only had 1 contracted player? As the other players had signed contracts to a new entity? This is where it gets strange to me, that date was in season for the A-League wasn't it, doesn't that mean they were playing "unregistered" players in season. All of the stuff around this seems strange. Just really really off. Also they can't transfer the license until WeeMac is gone now as if they do he just refuses to sign new contract and goes. And then if there is anyone else who wants to go elsewhere they can then not sign and go elsewhere as well.

Surely a ruling for the FFA & CCM to win and prevent future debacles should've been "ALL player contracts are guaranteed when a new company takes over the license of a team" of course as far as I know that could be against employment law in Aussie. 

time to put on some sausage sizzles and bake sales - weemac is on the CCM transfer list. Instead of pissing money into the hands of lawyers to get him in 8 months lets just pay-up now and then repay welnix with a sold out stadium when we play our proper hated rivals CCM.

I thought it was just a rumor that Seip was removed this way? On the CCM forum they seem to think it was mutual and that Seip wanted out.

If there is no transfer payments between A league clubs, how can the owner request compensation? or is compensation different to a transfer fee?

Like a spider in the mirror, we should look at this from the other side...... I wonder how we would feel if this is reversed?

Three things that CCM should seriously consider in all of this

1: The player does not want to play there any more and they don't *want* him.

2: They have rumoured to have released a player in the same manner in which we have *acquired* McGlinchey. Either its foul or its fair, it can't be both.

3: Depending on the details of his loan agreement, are they going to resume paying him on the details of the previous contract and back date it? Cause surely (and again depends on the loan agreement that was arranged with Sendai) they can't ask a player to sit on the side lines for another 4 months without pay. One would assume from a Phoenix standpoint, that while they will operate on goodwill, at some point, they may want their cash back from McGlinchey. This could be messy for the player too.

The FFA really need to take a massive look at the shambles of an organisation. David Gallop has been suspiciously quiet over this for the masthead of the organisation. We have teams that are allowed to get around the salary cap, teams that are allowed extra imports, teams that get preferential playing slots and now this bullshit around a club that has, but has not, but may transfer to new ownership on a yet to be determined date in the future and has questionable determination around which entity has the signed rights to these players and at which point in time.

Unfortunately, we are still operating in a vacuum of details. The arbitrator did not exactly spell out why he sided with CCM but it would be nice if this was spelt out so the layman understands. As has been pointed out, there are so many questionable variables that while may not materially affect whom owns McGlinchey from a CCM standpoint, leaves everyone else going "What the fuck? Explain this"

What a crock of shit

— Daniel McBreen (@djmcbreen) August 21, 2014

Always loved McBreen

This would get around the no transfer fee rule (TWs buy him for a fee from CCM, then Nix buy him a couple of days later from TWs - for the same fee). Would there be a stand down period though?

CCM are suggesting McGlinchey buys himself out of contract so there would be no need to complicate it with ACFC. Either way it would count against the cap.

What's the buyout amount? 

[toungueincheek]

I'm sure YF and/or the general footballing public could put together a givealittle campaign or something of the ilk. 

Once the amount is raised, as a third party we could buyout the contract or transfer to a faux entity, we could then pass on to Nix - if they're willing to spot us the money back.

[/toungueincheek]

The Yellow Fever Free Wee Mac Fund

is there a way to find out the buy out amount demanded by CCM? They certainly talk as if they have a well-defined figure they have been throwing around.

Unfortunate that solving the whole issue that way would put the PFA offside.....by the time you have the Phoenix, PFA, FFA, CCM, weemac and his agent all coming to the table with their own agenda it is easy to see how things have turned to custard.

#yellowfeverscholarship

Wee Mac - the next Marco Rojas.

Signed up to twitter just to ask them what figure they have in mind.

Any takers on whether I'll get a straight answer, or more bullshit?

JV

You said..

Sorry your wrong, the simple facts as I often posted were very straight forward MC was contracted to the Mariners... as Charlesworth has said there where many ways this could have been done to achieve what everyone wanted .

However a direction was taken even when the Mariners said they will enforce their contract .. Who made that decision and why is the question you should ask.

I often said and was largely told I was wrong is that FIFA have set rules and procedures in place that are mirrored in affiliate associations and a massive set of procedures pertain to when clubs change ownership ... FFA as some on YF have posted say contracts need to be  rolled over. The chaos if a change in ownership allowed clubs to fire who they like and players to leave if they wanted is simply not going to happen. The PFA relied from what I read that some players were not paid there contracts out by new A-League owners ... HHHMmmm the logic of this is !!!! but in as simple terms as possible two wrongs don't make a right. 

The issue  is the poor advise received .. I understand your comment that MC does not want to come back so he will be sold its that simple ...

That the Nixs have received stage 1, commercial law advise and high school advise about player transfers, and the Nixs accepted that advise  is your real issue.

You have no chance of getting a straight answer to that on twitter.

This isn't what the arbiter actually referred to (although yes the FFA do have a rule about this). He said that the legal entity that holds McGlincheys contract is still the legal entity that holds the a-league licence.

I told you. I TOLD YOU ages ago that all CCM wanted was a pay-out.

I haven't been following this as closely as others but from what I understand:

Old Mariners (i.e. pre-ownership change) hold McG's contract and also hold the FFA franchise licence.

New Mariners (i.e. post ownership change) hold all the other player contracts as all the other players signed new contracts but they do not hold an FFA franchise licence as it hasn't been transferred from the old to the new owners.

How are New Mariners going to play in the A-League without a licence ? I also assume that all the other players contracts are on shakey grounds until New Mariners actually hold an FFA licence - you can't enforce a contract for a player to play in the A-League when you don't have a licence to play in the league. 

To answer my own question the licence will presumably, before the start of the season, be transferred from Old Mariners to New Mariners. When the licence is transferred presumably McG's contract will become invalid as Old Mariners no longer hold an A-League licence and he has declined to transfer his contract to New Mariners.

The onus would seem to be on the FFA to complete the licence transfer (otherwise New Mariners aren't eligible to play in the league) at which point McG is a free agent.

What an I missing here ?

Yeah it's a bit rich calling the nix out for trying to get around the rules (though I do believe they thought he was a free agent, if anyone is pulling a swift one its Wee Mac and his agent) when CCM are using this to try and get around a rule that you aren't allowed to pay transfer fees between A league clubs - while not wanting to pay Wee Mac until January. 

They don't want wee mac, wee mac doesn't want to be there - usually an A league club would release the player unless a club from asia or europe offers them some money, which there has been no indication of this being the case. Instead they're holding his career to ransom (and his livelihood since he isn't getting paid), in order to get a payment from an A league club that is against the rules. 

lets just buy a striker instead

Was correct, but is not correct any more... they have transferred the other players' contracts back to Old Mariners... (apparently/allegedly)

As far as I am aware we don't actually know if this is the case. It is strongly rumored that players signed new contracts. We don't know when they commence, if they are conditional, or whether they signed new contracts to move back to the old company (which has been rumored). 

Yeah i think the article on Stuff sums it up, with comments from the new owner.

They want cash. Siep had no sale value.. McGlinchey does. So they don't want to let him go the same way they did Siep. They were never interested in retaining him for the squad at all.

It's all about the money. A buyout of his contract, a fee from another club, whatever, they don't care. And they'll happily leave him in limbo until his contract comes up. Just in case someone somewhere will buy him.

Yeah but releasing him any time before January (when they'll start paying him) = no value, so anything more than that would be a win for CCM. 

With contract law, unless we have ALL of the facts surrounding the ownership, the contract itself and all of its terms, we really don't know how this will go, even on appeal.

That's their whole business model isn't it? Get in young guys with talent and then sell them on. They would have made a lot on transfer fees over the years.

So is McGlinchey currently being paid by CCM or not?

If McGlinchey does have a valid contract with CCM there are only two possible parties who could be paying him (and he should be getting paid by someone) - Vegalta Sendai or CCM, and his loan at Vegalta Sendai was terminated. What were the circumstances of that occurring? The loan must have had a termination clause(s). What were the details of that? CCM must have been a party to any termination agreement?

Haven't been on the forum for a while so sorry if this has already been answered.

It looks like here there was a right of appeal? Which would mean the decision could be overturned (again, we don't know what the right of appeal turns on, if it is 'unfairness' of the decision it would be very hard to prove at law). Arbitration is usually used to save costs (and relationships), but looks like that has gone down the drain a bit too.

When he left Vegalta Senda there was as I understand an agreed settlement ... The Mariners contract is from 1 Jan and that,s when he will be paid from unless as it appears he is sold ..

Its worth reading Charlesworth comments as he says the Nix's are victims as well as MC..he also says he wants to sort in out with the Nix... 

Central Coast Mariners owner Mike Charlesworth has accused Professional Footballers Australia (PFA) of acting "disgracefully" during the Michael McGlinchey saga after the New Zealand international's bid to quit the club for Wellington Phoenix was scuppered by an independent arbiter.

By David Lewis
21 AUG 2014 - 7:18 PM

Charlesworth insisted that had PFA not become embroiled in the dispute over whether McGlinchey was still contracted to the Mariners, an "amicable outcome" could have been reached with "adequate compensation".

The midfielder now remains tied to the Mariners until the end of the 2014-205 A-League season.

With PFA and Wellington assessing whether to pursue the matter through legal means as McGlinchey seeks to sever his ties with Central Coast, Charlesworth (pictured below) said of Thursday's verdict from arbiter Mr Peter Kite SC: “I believe the PFA have behaved disgracefully.

"They have done their client Michael no favours and neither have they done Wellington or the A-League any favours whatsover.

"They need to take a long hard look at themselves in terms of what they are trying to achieve because they are doing a very poor job for everybody.

"Their conduct, in my opinion, has been divisive to the growth of the A-League. If they had kept out of this I am sure a deal could have been done [with Wellington].

"They have agitated a relatively straightforward situation, which could quite easily have been resolved, to a point where it can now be ongoing should they appeal.

"I don’t believe they have been working in the interests of Michael - in my view they have been working in their own self-interest and have not done a good job for anybody.

"I am sure that had Michael known where this was leading he would have found a club which would have adequately compensated us, or he would have bought himself out of the contract.

"Every player has a value and we put a value on him which we believe is more than reasonable."

In a statement, PFA CEO Adam Vivian said: "The PFA stands by the advice given to Michael, which was based on information given in October 2013 by Football Federation Australia (FFA) that due to a change in ownership, the A-League licence of the Mariners would be transferred to a new company controlled by owner Mike Charlesworth.

"Under an agreement reached between FFA and the PFA, all Mariners’ players were to be offered employment with the new company, and the previous Mariners’ entity would cease to operate the A-League licence.

"As a result, almost the entire Mariners squad has signed agreements with the new entity.

"As Michael was contracted to the previous entity, he was free to pursue his professional interests as an uncontracted player and sign a contract with a club of his choice.

"However, it only recently emerged that the entity licensed to operate the Mariners had not changed, but will do so in the near future. The reason for the failure to transfer the licence has not been satisfactorily explained to the PFA."

The PFA CEO went on to say: "The PFA is greatly concerned by the situation at the Mariners, which unnecessarily raises concerns about the sanctity of the A-League licensing system administered by FFA.

"All A-League players are entitled to know that the club which employs them is duly licensed by FFA. If not, the ability of the game to regulate itself and uphold player contracts is brought into question.

"Players have previously lost over $2.5 million in entitlements where a new entity refused to pick up player contracts on the transfer of an A-League licence. The irony of Michael’s position in light of this is not lost on the PFA and our membership.

"The PFA’s lawyers are now analysing the decision of the arbitrator to determine the next course of action."

Charlesworth said of the arbiter’s findings: "To me it's a common sense decision. All we wanted was adequate compensation for a very good contracted player. That has not been forthcoming so far."

McGlinchey, who exited his loan deal with J.League outfit Vegalta Sendai in June with the aim of accepting an offer from Phoenix, is due to return to Central Coast on 1 January.

But with the relationship between the player and the Mariners soured there is little prospect of him playing for them again, with Charlesworth confirming: "As far as we are concerned he is on the transfer list.

"I would say it's unlikely, but not impossible, that he will play for us again but we will listen to any reasonable offer.

"Our aim is to reach a financial agreement with Wellington and discussions are ongoing."

With CCM? 

Were they like, sure McGlinchey can terminate his loan (but we aren't paying/playing him until 2015)

No direct payment for transfer can be made between HAL clubs.

From a squad point of view: yes. From a personal point of view: no. 

WeeMac has very much hitched his cart on our wagon (training, moving family over etc) and I think we need to honour that. I don't see him ever playing for CCM again, and would hate to see him left in the lurch, or even worse, playing for the Jets.

It's an awkward balance. Although I agree with what you say, if he's on 200k+ we probably can't afford to do that. But perhaps we should stick it out for a while at least.