Jump to content

Nathan Byrne - Joined Charlotte FC


Rambalin

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PistoldPete said:

We only have Nixon's word that Byrne is getting paid. Tyler seems to know a lot about TUPE, (poor boy)and I think he says Byrne is entitled to be paid even though he challenges the validity of his old contract. Even so I cannot see how anyone can  be paid without there being an implied contract of some kind. Truth is we really do not know what is going on, I doubt Nixon knows that much either.   

yes otherwise Derby will be in breach of contract

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, rammieib said:

But I'm not sure we know the exact details.

He's allegedly questioning the extension but that was done by the old company.

He's also allegedly refused to TUPE to the new company.

So these are two different things.

 

I think we only know that he hasn’t turned up for work ! - if he wants to play football professionally another club needs to buy his registration which seems to be confirmed by the stony silence from the EFL the FA and the PFA who all have a multi part interest from both points of view, the fact that he hasn’t registered with another club indicates that any prospective new club is aware of that also. I expect this to drag on until the transfer window shuts, unless special dispensation is given to the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

Not sure you can say that although could be true. I would have thought that both remain quiet due to lawyers telling them to do so. Could be for a multitude of reasons that as you pointed out we are not privy to.

I think it needs sorting out ASAP for the player and clubs sake. That said I am still not impressed with his or LB's actions on this subject and think that DCFC should receive some sort of compensation. With LB it will be interesting to see if he is in the Bremen team/squad for their first game. Likewise it will be interesting to see if Byrne is signed by anyone before the contract issue is concluded.   

I think I said what I said because I am an eternal optimist. Hoping he’ll stay, it would solve a problem. Regardless of anything, he’s a good player, went through last season with us and must feel something and fit with the lads who shared that experience with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

Surely if he's getting paid, Derby can stick him in the U23's/ make him train.  Where is he?.

yes they could if he turned up, no doubt he is training on his own in a park somewhere whilst his agent tries to get him a club.

We could have a where is Nathan Byrne competition .....or maybe not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Unlucky Alf said:

A question, When did Byrnes contract get renewed, Was it before DC took over, or was it after DC took over, If before then surely Byrne accepted the terms of the contract, If after then....who knows ?‍♀️

His contract was renewed before Dc took over. In May I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

His contract was renewed before Dc took over. In May I believe. 

Then surely to christ he's under contract, If he's playing the "TUPE" card then this opens up a hornets nest with other players who are still in contract from other teams who go into Admin ?‍♀️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

We may have triggered the extension, but I doubt it was validated by the EFL until the takeover was complete. We got took over after the contract ended, which is where I think the issue arises and what the conflict is

He was on the retained list published on EFL website. So was Buchanan. We don't know what the conflict is but reasonable to guess that Byrne doesn't fancy playing in League One.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jono said:

Good point. The vagaries of contract law are interesting (I am not a lawyer) consider even signage for for car parks. By entering you might be committing  to a contract but that depends on where the signs were placed, how big they are and a raft of other stuff.

like you I reckon the silence is a sign that negotiations are taking place rather than a petulant walk out. 

My hope is that there's been no communication forthcoming from either Byrne or the club as they both are engaged in trying to resolve the issue behind closed doors so anything discussed is a totally private matter between the two parties which is the mature way to go about things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Then surely to christ he's under contract, If he's playing the "TUPE" card then this opens up a hornets nest with other players who are still in contract from other teams who go into Admin ?‍♀️

Alf

Its the way we came out of Admin that the issue, because we came out as an Asset purchase rather than a Share purchase a new legal entity for the club had to be created, you can see this in the Companies House records, if I remember correctly the name of the new entity is the same as the old one but with the words "The Rams" in the middle.   Some of the players have received legal advice that because their contract is with the old club legal entity there is no contract between them and the new legal entity.  Others players have been happy to accept employment under the new legal entity. Its quite a complicated issue and it will be interesting to see how it turns out, it could be argued that players are a club asset as they are written down in the accounts in that manner.  

Time and the application of money will sort it all out.

 

Edited by Elwood P Dowd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

Alf

Its the way we came out of Admin that the issue, because we came out as an Asset purchase rather than a Share purchase a new legal entity for the club had to be created, you can see this in the Companies House records, if I remember correctly the name of the new entity is the same as the old one but with the words "The Rams" in the middle.   Some of the players have received legal advice that because their contract is with the old club legal entity there is no contract between them and the new legal entity.  Others players have been happy to accept employment under the new legal entity. Its quite a complicated issue and it will be interesting to see how it turns out, it could be argued that players are a club asset as they are written down in the accounts in that manner.  

Time and the application of money will sort it all out.

 

Then he should take legal action against the club the EFL the FA as well probably if he believes he is correct. Unlike most business transfers he was an asset that was sold to a new owner under a registration that allows him to conduct professional duties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...