Loneguman
No ... this constant talk of FFA different seasons regs, whether or not the Mariners did or did not change ... is simply wrong ..
BTW the only time I have questioned Nix's management is that they accepted the advise of the PFA to easily ...
As clear as I can and am re stating this ... across world sport no player or club can benefit from a change in ownership... its there to protect mostly the players and player unions around the world in different sports have spent dollars and time to ensure this...
The PFA is affiliated across Australian sporting codes as well as many overseas Football unions... This is part of Players Union D & A one of the key reasons they exist to protect players on change of owners... Once the Mariners established very early on their contract and offered a solution the PFA should have jumped at it...
The PFA could have said we got some wrong advise early this is what it is and this is what takes place world wide ... look back at my posts and I said this case was a lay down straight forward case ... Basketball, Baseball, Cricket, Rugby, League, Handball and Football world wide have as I have always said have spent years working on change of ownerships issues and the standard is no one benefits .
However the PFA choose to rely on some information that runs totally against their D & A, and world practise is for them to explain.
Hand on heart not the other thing IMO both the Nix's and player have been used by the PFA ... as I said i have my reason which I may post latter ... I would add the slowness in FFA responses has not helped my guess is they wanted to protect the real reason I think this case was run.