PFA RELEASES "LETTER OF VARIATION" TO STANDARD PLAYER CONTRACT FOR CENTRAL COAST MARINERS WHICH FFA REQUIRED PLAYERS TO SIGN OCTOBER 24 2013:
This is what Michael never signed but which stated CCM was under new ownership and that players had to sign a new contract "to confirm your acceptance of employment with the New Co on the terms set out above."
http://www.pfa.net.au/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_...
Well that is interesting. A letter dated 23 Oct 2013 says the ownership of CCM transferred on 18 Oct 2013.
But the arbitration stated that the licence was still in the old company. So something happened between October and now regarding ownership, but the PFA weren't told. And they weren't given an answer by the FFA according to their statement.
So it seems that WeeMac, the PFA, and the Phoenix got legal advice based on this incorrect information.
All this then raises the issue about what club the players are signed to, and what entity played in the A-league and in the ACL.
I suspect Charlesworth was going to transfer the ownership and license to his own company, and had advised FFA and PFA and approached players to sign new contracts with the new entity. However that was not fully completed - the license transfer did not take place and McG was outstanding. Charlesworth thought better of it, told players that their contracts remained with the old entity after all and recovered any of the signed new contracts. He simply took financial ownership of the old entity.
Meantime McG had arranged his release from Japan and his deal with the Nix based on the understanding of a change of ownership and being a free agent.
The question for me is, why, in other cases, has a change of ownership required new player contracts and a transfer of FFA license, whereas this time Charlesworth seems to be getting away without either. It looks like FFA have not kept control of the situation and Charlesworth has run rings around them.
It certainly seems like that's what happened.
I think the Mariners players signing for the new entity and then signing back to the old one is a total red-herring. In general, you can't sign a contract with a legal entity that doesn't exist, and/or more specifically to this case, you can't sign an A-League player contract with an entity that doesn't hold a license to play in the A-League. So if the players did sign new contracts it looks like they were totally worthless.
That also puts to rest the "Mariners only have one contracted player" line.
The unanswered questions are more to do with whether the Mariners are currently paying McG and if not, why not? Also, why are they still saying they don't expect him back until Jan 1 if his loan to Vegalta Sendai is finished?
Also, what is actually going on with the transfer of ownership to Charlesworth? Is it legitimate and consistent with other such transfers?
There still seems to be something very murky happening in the background with both the transfer of ownership and the ending of McG's loan.