Michael McGlinchey (Weston FC | Australia)

this stuff about wee mac compensating ccm is a bit spooky... Similar to la liga where players have to pay clubs their release clause, not the purchasing club. Given clubs aren't allowed to pay transfers in the a-league is this a worrying new development? 

I don't think so - the Phoenix would not be able to pay Mcglinchey to compensate the CCM because it would be counted under the cap. The salary cap keeps it fair, and it allows players to move on if they are desperately unhappy.

i may have this totally wrong but

iirc

weemac got a payout from the Japanese for early contract termination?  

CCM were expecting to get a transfer fee or a player back when the loan finished

'Nix have been paying McG pretty much as soon as he left Japan

isn't the obvious deal that CCM get McG's payout from Japan, McG gets his new club and salary

Nix get their man

Yep that's how I read it.

Welcome Weemac! 

May your time in Wellington, and with the Phoenix be memorable and successful.

**Shambles over**

No doubt CCM ownership will now change hands and everyone and sundry will be asked to sign over to new contracts....

Maybe the FFA had a word and said they need to change over. so this deal happened as a result.

If so, maybe we could swoop and sign Bernie Ibini?

If not the best team ever by far the best midfield ever wouldn't you say?

Holland's 1978 World Cup midfield was pretty special...

Yep, definitely shaping as our best midfield ever imo. Not convinced yet about balance of the team as a whole though.

I find it highly unlikely that WeeMac has had to pay CCM anything directly from his own pocket. And if he did it was with a brown paper bag that had the fingerprints of the FFA, the PFA and the Nix on it.

CCM had a contract with WeeMac though, so that's how it gets officially reported.

Only if the Bling are changing ownership !

Now he'll get a season long injury. 

*touch wood*

Interesting article on the Roar just prior to the contract bye out... In all honesty from an ethical stance this was a poor act by McGinchy see my comment on the article below. 

http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/09/12/mcglincheys-p...

From the article an interesting quote from Phill Moss

My comment on the article is below.

Its reported that weeJudas paid out his contract. 

What has annoyed me most in this is the behaviour of the PFA they have lost a lot of respect I previously had for them.

FIFA rules and procedures which all countries who play under FIFA need comply with state on the sale of a club, clubs cannot not resign players and players walk out on clubs… FFA have similar rules…

The PFA is he had been hurt in Japan and could never have played again would have screamed the Mariners uphold his contract with us. 

The arbitration said the contract stood…

All the time the PFA were arguing and advising the Nux he was free… 

So PFA lets get this straight, a club struggling for money and is entitled to a transfer and yet you advise [wrongly as it turned out] he was free… then appealed to push the matter past most transfer windows and knowing the Mariners had already replaced him and planned to sell the player given he stated he had not faith in the coach and did not want to play for us [that is quite insulting TBH].

Beyond all this and its laughable, he was only six months into his contract when he asked to go and he was loaned out with no fee on the basic he would either return or we could sell him… this is great for future deals, how a player can openly walk away from a commitment like this hhmmm well its says a lot about the player..

NEXT time their is a dispute and a club does something to a player and people say why …. its things like this that harden management ..

Once upon a time I had huge respect for the PFA,… today I have little … they are acting more like a building union than the far sighted organisation they use to be

Almost right but you left out the small bit about the club ownership changing and players asked to sign new contracts under the new identity. If the original CCM ownership was still the one holdingthe club licence, you may have had a leg to stand on.

Midfielder continues to miss vital facts in his analysis. Colour me shocked.

Midfielder - you still seem reluctant to accept that your own club may have contributed to this clusterfuck in any way.

T

You totally miss the position...

You keep talking about the contract and was  it signed or not and who held the licence that's what the PFA kept arguing... it was found the Mariners contract was valid at law... and to have any other conclusions would [if you are honest] be contrite  to how these things are handled world wide across most sports.. and the abuse FFA coped from the PFA was huge ...  

The actions and methods used by the PFA where more aligned to a corporate lawyer trying to exploit a loophole they may have found. Then  run as much as you can tho the media as well..

The PFA have blamed everybody but themselves and have painted both the player and themselves as some kinda of victim..

Its simple the player had a valid contract, on any ethical stance he should have come back... please tell me being loaned out with no fee on the guarantee to come back and we get a fee for his transfer or he returns .... then maybe I can get out ... then tell the club he has no faith in the coach ... then tell me this is the action of a pure and snow driven innocent nay victim of FFA and Mariners .. 

If and business is business OK lets be fair .. however next time a player gets it up the A from his club .. just remember it's things like this that harden club management.

IMO the PFA have not done anything for their membership ... they have if anything harden how clubs will treat players.

I don't know but my guess is the contract buy out could have been quite a bit ... and tis also my guess someone else is paying it out. ... 

Also the contract buy out option was offered at the start by the Mariners which was rejected out of hand by both the PFA and Nix's management. ... So six moths ago it could have been sorted the offer which was made has in effect finally been accepted..

Did you just copy and paste your earlier post?

You may as well have.

Let me copy the final bit of my post ...

Also the contract buy out option was offered at the start by the Mariners which was rejected out of hand by both the PFA and Nix's management. ... So six moths ago it could have been sorted the offer which was made has in effect finally been accepted..

Ha! Other way round buddy. I have heard that Nix offered CCM money before the football united tour. CCM turned it down. 

that is quite old wood

Why did CCM and FFA advise the change of ownership(Entity) to the PFA - will we ever see a reason?

Why were the PFA given dates that this would occur.(Was it because it change contract status of the players?)

Whose advise was it on that CCM players were asked to sign New contracts/acknowledgements of ownership(Entity) change

Why did the FFA wait so long to advise they work on FIFA player contract rules(If they do) 

Doubt we will have these basics answered by a true official statement. But are not mentioned in most arguments as being factors.

(Just a Mechanic with no legal training)

that may be true, but it does not change the appearance that the PFA used a technicality to get a player out of a contract, when they would scream blue murder if an owner used the same technicality to get rid of a player

I am not sure CCM did anything wrong here

CCM at worst changed their mind about something, but at the time they had no legal obligation to do option a or b [one has to presume, because they did get to change their mind]

and sure option b may have allowed them to avoid debt, or some such, something our terry was also famous for

it's the FFA that advised everybody to act as if it was definitely option b, without securing that legally with CCM

and it was the PFA that used the loophole in option b to get McGlinchey off a contract, without confirmation from CCM as to their intentions

I may be totally wrong but, unless people have info I am not aware of, a lot of Nix supporters are jumping to conclusions that make us feel good, but aren't conclusions necessarily consistent with the facts

maybe dodgy all round, but to paint PFA and Nix and McG as pure as the driven snow is a bit of a stretch imho

It's lucky Midfielder is still here. Otherwise the whole off season angst thing might have wound down significantly with this whole thing appearing to (almost) be resolved. Can't have that - there's still amonth to go!

Midfielder - I'm not disputing that CCM had a valid contract.

I am simply stating that CCM's actions (with a supporting role from the FFA) could possibly have led both McGlinchey and the PFA to genuinely believe that at one point in time he did not have a valid contract - thereby contributing to the subsequent clusterfuck.

If you do not want to believe that anybody at your club is capable of doing anything stupid or acting like a douche that's up to you.

Here at the Phoenix we have plenty of experience of people acting like a douche so we're not that naive.

I'm not arguing this at all, just that CCM are probably as guilty as anyone.

I don't think anyone involved in this has emerged with any credit.

And i thought that this signing would be the end of the angst...

Change the probably to possibly and I'd probably agree.  But it is possible CCM are actually clean on this. Or probably. 

We shouldn't give midfielder too much flack, imagine if it was on the other foot.

No one is innocent in this affair but CCM comes out with the least amount of tarnish.

From what I understand the nix have acted honourably throughout.

The PFA and as much as it hurts me to say this WeeMac have both tried to rout the system, even if there was a legal loop hole it wasn't an honourable way to act. Of course we have no idea what went on behind the scenes and it could be that CCM did something to set it off, but on the surface it doesn't look good.

Glad we've got him though!

Carlsberg are the real cause of this mess. I'd bet on it.

I know they're an easy target, but I still blame the FFA the most for this mess (with the PFA a close second).

1. The premature release escalated the matter out of control, whereas up until that point I think it is likely that it would have been cleaned up on the quiet
2. By refusing to take leadership of the situation they allowed it to drag on and fester for months, when what was clearly needed was for them to get the various parties into a room somewhere and sort something out. They appear to have finally done that this week, but its months too late to avoid quite a bit of ill-will from all parties.

T

Let me be clear, I honestly believe if there is an innocent party or parties in this its the two clubs... The Nix's believed the advise they received from the PFA ... The Mariners held a valid contract.

The PFA knew all along what the Mariners believed .. they in their role as a players union understand better than most [which IMO is why the Nix's management believed them] that changing owners in no way allows either player or club to take advantage of it...

I can assure you if the PFA had won the first case, FFA, NRL, AFL SR would have made a joint appeal ... what I have always said is common practice across most world sports not only Football. Certainty FFA, NRL, AFL, & SR regs are reasonably constant in these matters. 

The smoke screen the PFA kept on arguing about who actually held the licence and changes to FFA regs from one season to another was always rubbish. Professionally run tho media contacts as well ... I have my reason why I think the PFA did it and they have nothing to do with MC.

Very simply the PFA, Nix's where made an offer by the Mariners at the very start ... as a quester of goodwill and to solve the impass someone can bye out his contract.... What's happened six months latter ... 

I will drink to that.

You seriously think the AFL and NRL give two fucks about a contract dispute in football?

Think his point is they are worried about legal precedents in australia.

I'm no lawyer, but aren't legal precedent only established by courts. Not in arbitration cases.

Yes and double nay yeas to the power of whatever...

All sports have regs that govern ownership of player contracts ... and if the Mariners had lost [remember they won] ... if would have cast doubt on the regs of other codes as well..

The AFL & NRL as well as SR also have player unions and there is not a chance if legally either players or clubs could walk away from a contract on a change of ownership it would have gone by unchallenged. 

As I said I have me reason... why I think the PFA went to such an extreme but that's for a letter day.