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.
In this loan situation, who was paying McG, what was Japan paying CCM and or McG. And the mutual release from 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.