Michael McGlinchey (Weston FC | Australia)

Well done Tegal.  

Solved

It's the cause of the PFA and WeeMac thinking there was a loophole.

But it doesn't necessarily excuse the jumping through of the loophole.

If you see what I mean.

Nobody comes out of this clean.

Legally, you will find the club ownership structures and player contracts are quite different in the major European leagues compared to the A-League. European clubs are entirely privately owned entities, not franchises ultimately controlled by the country's governing body as in the A-League.

Players' contracts in the A-League are with the owner of the club AND the FFA.

When the ownership of a club changes in the A-League, my understanding is that previous player contracts become invalid. Hence the 'Letter of Variation to the Standard Player Contract" sent to Central coast Mariners players dated October 24 2013 requiring them to sign new contracts.

Here is the new contract sent to Mariners players:

http://www.pfa.net.au/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_...

Note such clauses: 

"7. FFA guarantees the performance of the Club of its obligations to you under this

Agreement."

This means the FFA is obliged to pay players' wages etc. if the club  can not or will not.

Obviously there is no such guarantee in la Liga or the English Premier League and when clubs go bust, players sometimes have to resort to personal legal action to secure money owed to them.

So do we have him or not? Otherwise I'm calling the whole thing off on account of incomprehensibility

don't think you have answered many of my points and here you just lose credibility altogether. We have this weird FFA regulated franchise thing, so the contracts are with a licence holder, not with the club. In the case of Barca the contract would be with the club and would still be if the club was sold.

Midfielder tends to do that. Ignores others points, and goes off on his own thing. Probably save yourself a lot of time if you get used to this fact :p

You do realise that ownership of the company that held the licence could have simply been changed and no new contracts would have to be signed. In the example you give above that is how Barca would have changed ownership. It was your owners choice to do it this way, presumably to wipe off debt and/or tax.

Plus there is no way Messi would want to play for Man United.

You realise Barca is owned by it's members, right? Meaning there are 160,000 owners who would all need to sign dodgy contracts for your little hypothetical to be valid. What a bizarre example.

He's the Mariner's Bluemagic then, really.

This is not striclty accurate.

Seriously guys, of all the posts on here (apart from mine) Midfielder's have been closest to the truth.

There could be another ??

OK, so if we ignored the change of ownership, which seems to be full of inconsistencies, the 1st January thing is still weird to me.. Midfielder, perhaps you could shed some light on this, as you have seem to have a bit of understanding from a CCM perspective.

Here's how I see it:

WeeMac, Arnie and CCM reach a gentleman's agreement that he goes to VS on a loan, with no real fees being paid, bit of a mates rates thing between Arnie and CCM, while WeeMac also gets an opportunity to earn a bit more (or screeds more as you put it Midfielder), plus develop his career. Win win for everyone.

This is a loan of the player, not a transfer, so wouldn't CCM still own the player contract? The contract is not moved to VS is it? He's only on loan. Seems the FFA arbitrator agrees as he said Weemac is STILL contracted to CCM. So moving along on the basis that WeeMac is still contracted to CCM during the load period.

Things turn to custard at VS, Arnie gone, language barriers etc, things not a rosy as is expected. Loan is terminated.

With CCM still being the contract owner, would they not have been party to this discussion Midfielder? It was widely reported, and I don't recall anything about CCM kicking up a stink at that point, as WeeMac would have had to return to CCM as a contracted player.

As you said, if he'd been injured over there, and the loan terminated, CCM would have been required to pick up the pieces, becasue it was only a loan, and CCM still own the contract.

So this is where I get all confused...

If he's still contracted until then, why are they not paying him. Or refusing to do so until 1 January. If they havent been paying him, then WeeMac has the ability to get out of the contract due to the clause about non-payment. Isn't that correct?

The only way you wouldnt pay him is because he's not contracted to you, would that be a fair assumption?

SO.. If CCM are saying he's not contracted to them until 1 January, and thats why they're not paying him, then why are they blocking him from signing for the Nix now, and then asking him to fulfil his duties on 1 Jan?

The FFA arbitrator has said he is STILL contracted to CCM, so why even bandy about a 1 January date in the first place.

Hoping you can add some clarification from a CCM view on these points Midfielder.

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.

This maybe covered elsewhere but what about the FFA rule of not allowing payments to change hands between A League clubs for player transfers? How can CCM be holding out for cash if this is the case, given they've basically resigned themselves to Weemac not playing for them again

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?

Goldienz

You asked 

Warts and all answer…

The Mariners just before the change in ownership went about four weeks were players where not paid. The group coaches and players stuck it out. In return the club said reasonable requests will be granted.

McGlinchey is one of the players that stood by the club in these hard times. Further the Mariners have an always said they would release players to overseas club if it was a benefit to the player.

McGlinchey arrived at the Mariners with his career at a crossroad, constant injury had plagued his career and most clubs would not touch him. To soft and not strong enough were the words used to describe him at this part of his career.

The Mariners took the risk, and had in Andrew Clark  arguably one of the best physical trainers in the world. He rebuilt McGlinchey and spent all the time that goes along with re building and the result speak for themselves.

At the same time the Mariners gathered via their youth academy and scouts many attacking ball players meaning it was difficult for teams to target any one player as we had a number of players. Amini, Rogic, Fitzy, Abinini, Duke meaning McGlinchey or any of the ball players had more freedom that teams who only had one attacking player. Add Ryan in goals with his wide distribution skills with Sainsbury and Dutchie also passing from the centre of the park, add Pedj constantly over lapping or supporting McGlinchey . He was part of a very good team that suited his style of play with and excellent coach and conditioner.

He then signed for the third time a 3 year deal, and after Arnold and Clark left he received an offer. He was only months into his new 3 year contract. He could have been sold for a lot at this stage. However as a reward for being loyal in the troubled times he was loan out with no fee. To earn a lot of money and develop hopefully an overseas career.

All that was asked in return was he was to return for the last six months, and if his career had taken off we could sell his contract and earn a fee [more than likely less than what we could have earned before] and or he would return to play for us.

Things did not work out for him in Japan, and he and his club spilt and he now had six or so months to spare.

Issues over the licence FFA etc … as far as the Mariners were concerned we had a signed contract from 1 Jan and believed he was coming back to play for us from 1 Jan as this was the contract.

The arbitrator Mr Peter Kite ruled last Thursday after everyone presented their case determined McGlinchey remained contracted to the Mariners. This after a long hearing with the legal bill by the PFA and Nix exceeding the Mariners I am told by a lot.

As we see it he was not replaced in the squad until after he clearly said he did not want to play under our current coach [ that is a huge insult we feel].

We believe we have a valid contract and we also believe the moral high ground .. our coach, our club has been constantly accused of many things, when all we have done is insist on what was agreed. In all honesty McGlinchey on the open market we he was loaned to the club of his choosing for free, could have been sold for a fee in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I earn my living giving taxation and financial advice. Often repairing poor advice people received before. The Mariners always had McGlinchey registered as their player and no announcements where ever made by the club he was not our player. I am amazed at the advice given and it appears the Mariners were almost the last to know.

I am also astounded by the number of legal experts on this site … remember all the argument put where also put to Mr Peter Kite and he has said the contract stands and for reasons I have expressed in previous posts that makes sense to ensure a change in ownership does not create a free for all…

Yup, thats a great summary. It was always the the bit about them not paying him where i got lost.

And thank you Midfielder for taking the time for a lengthy answer. I'm not sure you answered directly all my points, but combining your post, and this one, helps clarify it.

Still... #freeweemac :)

Do CCM have to transfer the licence to the new entity and if so do they have to do that before the transfer window closes. 

The confusion for most is that it was not publicly and privately know that the transfer between the old and new entity did not happen - until after the arbortrator report was released. IMO

He signed a 2 year deal in Feb 2013. 

I think you're dreaming if you think CCM granted a loan for the benefit of the player. Arnold wanted to sign him permanently. Sendai weren't keen so they got him on loan instead. Expectation was that he would get signed if the loan worked out. Massive financial reason they let him be loaned out.

Certainly not much respect for the 'loyal servant' been shown of late huh?

I've asked this question of some people who know. There are ways...

The joke of it, and why Dale (and I) blame this on the FFA is that everyone worked on the assumption that the licence had changed hands. That's what the FFA put in their letter to players.

Then they turned up at the arbitration and said "nah that never happened."

Fuck the FFA.

T shirt suggestion.

I think we have to be careful about getting on our high horse exactly as you say Smithy.  We're not whiter than white in this.  Just because McGlinchey wants to come here really doesn't mean CCM have to let him, especially if he's found to have a valid contract with them.  Cool heads need to prevail somewhere along the line, but I do think someone will have to pay CCM to release McGlinchey (one of the top players in the league) from his contract.  That someone maybe should be the FFA, or it could be us.  Don't count on the FFA paying up, so that probably means it's us right?

What would be very interesting is if the PFA decide to sue the FFA for incorrect information provided to the CCM players regarding the change of licence holder

But reality says, FFA will now have to find a back door to open to relieve some pressure 

I wouldn't worry too much about either Wee Mac not wanting to play for CCM, or CCM wanting him to play for them.  In the cold light of day neither will cut their nose off to spite their face. In the past many players have submitted transfer requests or demanded to leave a club - cough, Rooney, cough - and many clubs have tried to sell players and after it has fallen through they have continued to play successfully for the club.

yeah fair enough. 

Though there is a salary cap to consider in this instance. Plus CCM are penny pinchers. 

do we really have two more months until there is any football???

Wee Mac is an import, and a good one at that.

No club would let him go just like that.

CCM have been happy to go down the legal road this because they are the only ones who knew the state of their ownership.

Wouldnt surprise me at all to see us drop this and get someone else, it may not be worth the legal hassle and compensation.

But who else is there? I raised the question and the best answer was Howieson. I can't see us buying James Troisi or anything.

CCM have said they don't expect McGlinchey to play for them and I doubt he will. I don't think there really is anyone in the wrong here persay except maybe the FFA.

The letter on the PFA website regarding the licence transfer is dated October and McGlinchey was loaned out in January. So who did Vegalta Sendai loan him from, NewCo or OldCo?

There is always someone else...

The question is, where in the table would we finish with McGlinchey, and where without him, if the replacement player was of a lesser quality. 

Not substantially different I think

WeeMac could make a substantial difference. And I think it would be good marketing too.

Miles ahead of you...

I've been thinking this also. Be amusing if the PFA could raise a class action on behalf of the entire Mariners squad.

If nothing else, you'd think the misrepresentation big enough to invalidate the agreement? I'm guessing this is one of the PFA's core arguments in re WeeMac.