Phoenix Transfer Speculation 2013/14

With the season over, it's time for a new thread.

I'll open with O'Keeffe to Nix.

No thanks

Lao Tzu rolled his eyes, Bodhisattva said "talk to the hand" 

Is the whole of the off-season going to be like this?

Patrick - take control.

 Not sure how many RBs are off contract this season from other clubs. Hingert is one I think, but has probably burnt some bridges with the Phoenix two seasons ago.

Can the RH contacts swing another bored youth warming benches in england

I hope the club thinks seriously about buying Totori out of his contract - freeing up a second import spot is worth a lot more than whatever we are paying him.

Hingert - that boat has sailed.

Wholeheartedly agree on the buying out Totori thing.

That's assuming he's willing to do it. I imagine he'd rather stay and earn an extension or a place at another club. Agreeing to terminate his contract would mean he doesn't believe in his own ability, which you'd assume isn't true. Unless he can find a gig elsewhere, I doubt he'd be willing to be paid out. 

anyone heard the rumour that Lia is one of the highest payed at the club ?

 wouldn't be a surprise, he's been there since the Terry days.....

I assume you're referring to Totori - not his choice if the club elects pays out the full amount remaining on his contract.

I know it would still come out of the cap but frees up an invaluable 2nd import spot and gives the new coach a little more scope for recruitment.

Keeping him as water boy for the next year would be dopier than the put option in his contract.

Surely Totori has a choice as to whether his contract is terminated or not...? Doubt the PFA would be happy with a club effectively firing a player without cause. 

I could be wrong of course. 

but, we have good cause....

Paying him out is not the same thing as terminating his contract although the end result could be the same.

I say could because I am assuming that if the Nix pay him the full remuneration due for the term of the contract then it has fulfilled its
contractual obligations and the contract has, in effect, been completed and is ended.

Of course it's impossible to know for sure if paying him out fully discharges the Nix's obligations and ends the contract unless you are privy to the terms and conditions of the contract.

What's the problem ?

It's an interesting one. 

It's certainly something that happens in other leagues around the world. I just have a feeling its not something that can happen in the A league, due to the PFA. 

Could be seen more as 'redundancy' which clearly isn't legal as you'd then replace him with another player. I think there would have to be a clause in the contract permitting it, and I don't see one in the standard player contract I just had a quick look at. 

Happy to be proven wrong, as I'm not certain about any of this.

Probably a good way of getting an idea is to look back and see if there has been any instances where a contract has been terminated and it clearly wasnt by mutual consent, or if a player has ever contested on that basis and won. We had G*o, but I imagine he would have been done under a breach of contract (timeliness at turning up to training etc)

Football players are contractors not employees, so employment law doesn't apply.  The club can buy out player contracts whenever they want.  A player can only litigate for any material losses they have suffered from the ending of their contract, and if it's paid out there is zip for them to sue over.

Surely they're classed as employees. They have all the characteristics of an employee, including not being able to sign for another club etc. Granted I only have a first year university commercial law knowledge, but there is no way I'd class them as a contractor. 

Here's a link that explains the difference a little:

http://www.fis.ncsu.edu/controller/tax/employee_vs_contracto.asp

Would be happy with Roux, never seen him play let alone know what he looks like. But he is a kiwi, which basically means he is good enough :)

From your article:

"What is the permanency of the relationship? If the worker is given the expectation that the relationship will continue indefinitely, rather than for a specific project or period, then it is more likely that the intent was to establish an employer/employee relationship."

The definite fixed term of the contract points to them being classed as contractors not employees.  If they were classed as employees the club could never get rid of them, even when they're 55.

These laws are also designed to protect, and get tax from certain industries.  Construction is one where these laws apply, and IT is another where they don't.  You might remember the bruhaha over the hobbit contractor vs full time employee issue, where the law was re-written to ensure workers on NZ films were classed as contractors not employees.  I would be sure that highly paid footballers would also be contractors.

The bigger issue would be registration with the league.  The buy-out of the player contract would be under the salary cap, so there could be a chance the import slot attached to the contract counts too.  Doubt it though.

But all the other characteristics are of an employee. It's not an all or nothing kind of deal. The fact that the club dictates how they do their work, that they can only be employed by them, even that they cannot partake in other sports that can be deemed by the club as too dangerous - all points to an employee. An employee can also be on a fixed term contract, which is what I imagine footballers to be. 

A "Yes" answer for the following questions indicates that the worker is an employee:

1. Does the business provide instructions to the worker about when, where and how he or she is to perform the work? yes
2. Does the business provide training to the worker? yes
3. Are the services provided by the worker integrated into the business' operations? yes
4. Must the services be rendered personally by the worker? yes
5. Does the business hire, supervise and pay assistants to the worker? yes
6. Is there a continuing relationship between the business and the worker? yes
7. Does the business set the work hours and schedule? yes
8. Does the worker devote substantially full time to the work of the business? yes
9. Is the work performed on the business' premises? Sort of?
10. Is the worker required to perform the services in an order or sequence set by the business? yes
11. Is the worker required to submit oral or written reports to the business? Australian Cricketers...
12. Is the worker paid by the hour, week or month? Yes
13. Does the business have the right to discharge the worker at will? Not sure
14. Can the worker terminate his or her relationship with the business any time he or she wishes without incurring liability to the business? Not sure
15. Does the business pay the traveling expenses of the worker? yes

A "Yes" answer for the following questions indicates that the worker is an Independent Contractor:

16. Does the worker furnish significant tools, materials and equipment? No
17. Does the worker have a significant investment in the facilities? No
18. Can the worker realize a profit or loss as a result of his or her services? No
19. Does the worker provide services for more than one firm at a time? No
20. Does the worker make his or her services available to the general public? No

re: terminating contracts, How did GCU do it with Smith?

Shin Kwang-Hoon would be my first signing - Outstanding South Korean Right Back/Wingback. Yes I would use our foriegn spot for a RB

Followed by...

Billy Celeski (box to box role and Nick Kalmar (should recapture previous form)

to replace Smith & Sanchez

Do what I can also to sign Gamiero

Moss, Jacob Spoonley

*Shin Kwang-Hoon, Muscat, Sigmund, Durante, Boxall, Lochhead, Hogg

Bertos, Fenton, Billy Celeski, Nick Kalmar, Lia, *Carlos Hernandez, *Ifill

Brockie, *Huysegems, Boyd & Gamiero

If we somehow manage to ditch totori then I would bring in Liam Miller

nick kalmar? really ?

In: Luke Rowe.

Yes

Thought he was far too slow and caught out a fair bit. His positioning while defending can be blamed for that. Not as enthused as others about him. Better suited to LM role IMO

Pain and Rojas left him for dead on two occasions each (i re-watched the game). His marking wasn't great either.

Going forward he looked a lot more confident yes and hence why I suggests he moves to a LM role. Would be much more effective and a player I'd want to see

Lochhead manages to do both well (when in form)

By all accounts he had a very good game at LM for the All Whites too

is carlos still playing for us next season?havn't herd much for about a month now