Michael McGlinchey (Weston FC | Australia)

Yes Ryan, however, if he was under their contract like they have maintained, why did his wages not revert to them paying him the instant the loan was cancelled? What do they expect him to do "You are ours under contract but we are not paying you until January 1" GTFO CCM

Unless of course his contract with them had a clause that said something like if the loan is cancelled you are still on contract to CCM but you won't be paid or play again for CCM until January 1st.

I am not sayign it DID have a clause like that, because I have not seen the contract. I suspect you haven't seen it either... I am just pointing out it is POSSIBLE that it might have had such a clause, so it is not 100% true that if they are not paying him then they can't possibly have him under contract.

Who would sign a contract saying that...?

double post. derp

My understanding is he was released to play in Japan for 18 months ... meaning the Japanese side pay his wages .. and from Jan 1 he was to return to the CC on his contract...

The issue is he parted ways with his club in Japan early... so what to do after he left ... you assume his agent obtained an early release fee...

Given he was no longer under contract with the Japanese club he was unattached from when he left the Japanese club untill 1 Jan... 

During his time in Japan the Mariners changed owners ... the issue is does / do the contracts with the older club remain in place with the new club...  that's what's being argued I guess... 

Sometimes like a spider on a mirror its worth asking the question from the other side ... assume in Japan he was badly injured and could never play again ... would the Mariners have had to pay out his contract from Jan 1 ... if yes then as I see it the Mariners contract is valid and enforceable ... however I am no lawyer and given the time they are taking it must be complex ... 

A contract not honoured is a contract ripped up. By CCM. GTFO. If you're not paying a guy and he isn't getting paid by another club through the loan arrangement, he's not your player. Getting paid is the main simple basic absolute way to check if you've got a contract. 

Are you getting paid? No? That's either slavery or no contract.

Also justice delayed is justice denied. 

I think that's generally a pretty fair assessment of the situation. I'm not sure the assumption that he obtained an early release fee is safe though. I would also add that it wasn't just an ownership change but a completely different company gained control of the CCM licence, and it was the old company that he had a contract with rather than the club. It was also the former company that would have held player insurance in case of injury etc and I understand that company is far from debt free.

If "CCM released him to go to Japan & hence when he left japan he was unattached" then there should be no debate on him playing for the Phoenix right now, he would just have a future clause to go back to Mariners to dispute.

I think there is something else going on...or he would be allowed to play right now.

A bus in the hand is better than two in the bush.






Sorry I thought we were just sharing random sayings. That one is from 'Metlink Proverbs, by Luke Fitzmaurice' (as yet unpublished).

No he was released to play in Japan ... and even if that meant he could play for you it would only be until 1 Jan... 

I think if there was no change in ownership it would be quite straight forward .. he was contracted to the Mariners ... I guess the position is and I read it in a post a few miles back that FFA rules do not allow clubs to change ownerships to avoid paying players and that contracts should roll over ..

However if it was that and dried it would be already over ... or someone at FFA are / is being slack or poor in their job... certainty the PFA believe [well they say it publicly] MC is a free agent... but asking my question I am sure the same PFA would be screaming for his money if he had been injured in Japan... 

Something that has not been  brought up before is the nature and funding of the Mariners ... I assume most on YF know we are a club that has a very successful youth academy and arguably the best training facilities of any club in Australia further the development of juniors to be on sold overseas from players developed by the academy and club [both junior and some senior]  is a major source of funding.... Further most years we have sold many of our best players and this is seen as a way of gaining revenue and obtaining high class players at the same time....  Winning this case would be considered I assume by the Mariners board as important if for nothing else as a single to players don't try and use legal loop holes to leave. 

We have two hugely talented kids from our academy this year ... one is rated as our best junior ever ... so maybe this a line in the sand for teh board ... but I guess and offer for debate rather than actual knowledge... 

What is needed is CCM to take the club WeeMac was loaned 2 to court for breach of contrat. Oh that's right that contract is nil and void because that entity (no owner) does not exist. 

seeMed and the J team agreed on terms of his release has nothing to do with the Mariners ..

However I can see you have a legal background and inside information so I bow to your knowledge

Midfielder, is the kid from the academy a local or the one that came into NYL from AIS?

Fuck this shit, just decide already

I think the reality is, we have put up a number of straight forward scenarios as to why he is and should be our player. Considering that they have not made a decision, there must be something we don't know about this that seriously complicates it. That's the part that scares me the most.

They've discovered he's a Scot

He came from the AIS last year to our youth side

I'm not sure it's completely straightforward.  One, we are relying on a technicality to a certain extent.  Two, this could lead to every player becoming a free agent if a club changes hands.  If that happens how do you insist players stay with the club, but also does it mean that the club can use a change of ownership to cut players?

Bosman ver 2?

In a normal course of events, Wee Mac would have had his loan cancelled by the Japanese club and he would have come back to play for CCM. But a) the club doesn't want him back until Jan 1st for some reason and b) the license has been transferred to a new owner whilst he was away.

If cap issues are the reason for A it is easy enough to fix, with a flick of the pen he can become your international marquee. Is Charlesworth that broke he can't afford to do that? If its a case of your club not willing to pay him until then, that is a breach of contract and he is entitled to leave.

B is much more murky but if CCM didn't think it was an issue, why did they get the players to come in and sign things to recognise the new ownership? Wee Mac didn't sign one of these.

Either way, the issue is how your club is being run atm. I know it hurts to have the illusion that your club is infallible broken but it seems they have screwed up and are now trying to dig in and save face.

Do we know that they don't want him back until Jan 1st or is that just when he is supposed to come back after the loan agreement and therefore when it is enforcable that he comes back?

No matter what neither side is going to come out of this looking good, McGlinchey is someone who exploited a loophole to get what he wanted despite having a contract to some team who plays in Gosford. CCM look incompetent.

Rumours are CCM used that to get rid of Seip.

In 99% of the leagues around the world, changing ownership isn't an issue but it is in the A-League because of the way it has been set up by the FFA.

Wee Mac could be exploiting it for a bigger pay day or he could be annoyed at how he has been treated by CCM and found a way out, we don't know his motivations.

Yes so that is when they expect him back from the terms of his loan, doesn't mean they don't want him back earlier. But yes we can assume that the nix are paying his wages and therefore CCM shouldn't have a leg to stand on.

My understanding is that a decision has been made, but will remain confidential. The team that MWMcG is going to be playing for will have to play him with a paper bag over his head, and the other team will need to sign a similar player to also play likewise. The ongoing discussions are mainly around the size of the eyeholes.

Follow the Money. Did CCM pay wages to McGlinchey (either as a Company or as an old one) after his release from Japan? An "early release fee" is really like a form of holiday pay.  If Michael has accepted wages from CCM then there is a problem. But otherwise it really should not be a problem. No pay. Defunct contract from a Company no longer existing. End of story. Let's not forget Perth went to much greater lengths to look after their GK.

how does the FFA get away with declaring a decision will be announced every Friday for a month without any consequence? On those grounds alone wee mac could demand compensation for the inefficiency of the process.

HHHMMMmmm you may be right but your club as well signing a player without sorting out is he a free agent relying on a technical legal argument.. add FFA as well who don't appear have been on the ball...

As I have mentioned many times it appears to me to be very complex and the finding could have far reaching consequences ... 

Let me put a hypercritical ... the Nix's current owners for some reason decide to get out and a new owner comes in... Your best players refuse to sign and say we have a better offer ... then say the new owner does not want player X and says his contract is not going to be renewed...  

If I was guessing and this is all this is ... there could a conflict between FFA rules and National Law..

Has often happened in the past when the rules and procedures of an organisation are over ruled by National laws .... it could be that under NZ law the non signing with the new company means he is a free agent and FFA rules and procedures say he is not a free agent... 

The issue if this is correct is would Nix management rely on local laws to over rule FFA R & P... the Bowman case in Europe and the Tuttyy case in Australia [Tutty was a RL player in the 60's / 70's] are examples where organisational rules and procedures where over ruled by national courts ..

As I said just guessing ...because this in every other respect seems straight forward ... 

Far reaching consequences? For your club maybe but this isn't the first time this has happened. I do think you guys have dug your heels in because there may be other players in similar situations, was plenty of rumours over Rose to Sydney using the same get out.

The Knights had players refuse to sign new deals to see out the season when their licence was withdrawn, it is their choice and you have to deal with that. As for a club using a change of ownership to get out of a contract, it would be a dog move and I would hope they suffered some consequences for that action.

the whole clubs changing ownership to get rid of a player is a lot more risky than its worth. Who is to say all the players you do want to keep sign the contract? Maybe players will get pissed off at the club for using a loophole to get rid of one of their teammates and collectively decide not to sign? Some players may negotiate better deals for themselves?

I don't think its as simple and viable option or loophole as people are making out. 

Players can still decide if they want to play under the new ownership or not. That is simple and realistic. Is that a good thing? The PFA would think so, club management not so much. 

There are apparently a-league clauses that dictate it is at the FFAs discretion when they reclaim a licence and hand it out to another entity. The FFA can inform a player he must re-sign an equivalent contract to play in the a-league and tell the new licence holder they must offer all the players equivalent contracts. This way if it is a situation like the Knights or Gold Coast they can simply disolve all contracts while if it is a situation like the Phoenix or CCM they can effectively carry on as before.

What they are probably nervous of is actually testing this in court. In this case they might have forgotten about McGlinchey since he was overseas so it is fairly questionable the FFA can tell McGlinchey to sign a new contract months after the a-league termination happened. I don't know whether they told him to sign a new contract at the time or not, I am assuming no because it wouldn't have taken this long. And if they are afraid of this falling over in court, they wouldn't want to open it up to set a precedent for other more robust cases.

Seip was contracted to the other CCM licence holder and was not asked to sign a new contract. However as far as I am aware there is no evidence that CCM threatened him with simply cutting him off. You would have to ask him and that quote that was made here a few days ago has not been backed up with evidence. CCM have almost certainly dumped a load of debt by registering a new company however. The ownership change could have been at the company level and then no new contracts would have had to be signed at all.

Seip wanted out big big big time there are rumours floating around on the Coast as to why and posting them here does no body any good ... 

But he wanted to go and the club was not happy with his services ... and he played for us last season... he went on a mission to find another club ...everybody is happy ... especially Seip ... 

Can we please auto correct midfielders posts to get rid of the ellipses? It drives me mad./\

... Does... ...It...?