I don't know what you're confused about.
WeeMac goes to Japan. He's on loan, so you're right there is still an employment arrangement with CCM.
While he's in Japan he gets a letter from the FFA giving him wrong information about CCM's restructuring. He doesn't sign it.
The loan doesn't work out, he wants to leave.
He asks the PFA what his status is if he leaves. They tell him, based on what the FFA has said, that he could be a free agent.
He rings the Phoenix. They say "yeah we're keen if you're available."
He arranges to terminate his loan. Tells the Mariners he's done, and comes to Wellington.
The Mariners say "wait on, you're still under contract with us."
WeeMac says "actually I'm not, because you don't have a licence anymore (the FFA told me so) and I haven't signed this new contract."
They say "well that's bullshit, report to work or we will stop paying you."
WeeMac checks with the PFA, they say "nup, you're definitely all good and we'll back you all the way."
So WeeMac stands his ground, and so Mariners stop paying him because he hasn't turned up for work.
There may also be a slight variation on this theme where the Japanese club was responsible for paying him until 1 January, and may have done at the point of termination. Or WeeMac may have agreed not to be paid for the remainder of the loan period because he was leaving early.
In any of the above scenarios however, given the ruling of the arbitrator, it is not unreasonable for Mariners not to be paying someone who is refusing to work for them under a contract which has been upheld and is valid.
That is a good summary, I would add that the Mariners forget to tell everyone that they did NOT changed ownership, even all players, execpt WeeMac, signed new contracts. Actually nobody knows under which ownership the really played last season. If they played under old owner, WeeMac was not free, new owner Weemac is free.
The Phoenix now questioning under which ownership the Mariners are, I guess that open another can of worms.
Is that right?