Nathan Byrne - Joined Charlotte FC

[StarterForTen]

13 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Yep agree with every word of that.

Unfortunately people have gone with the Athletic/Derbyshire Live explanation that this is down to TUPE regulations, but the other evidence suggests otherwise - whether that be the issue over still holding the player registrations, or the fact that the club's most valuable assets in Bielik, Bird & Knight have not refused to TUPE across (and gone elsewhere for a massive signing on fee, as their agents would have strongly advised!).

Just an untrained supposition but I would suggest this is nothing to do with TUPE per say and more to the fine print of contract law. Perhaps one of the contracting parties (in this cases Derby County Football Club Limited) being in Administration negates the ability to activate the option. The contracts I use at work all have restriction clauses triggered by insolvency events, though the are service provision contracts, not employment contracts. Are footballers contracts employment contracts?

[Comrade 86]

Christ. And I thought amortisation was dull. 

[hintonsboots]

24 minutes ago, 86 Hair Islands said:

Christ. And I thought amortisation was dull. 

Can we start an EBITDA Thread ?

[Elwood P Dowd]

12 minutes ago, hintonsboots said:

Can we start an EBITDA Thread ?

A ratio analyse thread would be interesting we could start with Debtor days  and move through Stock turns to the Acid test  ?? 

[Ambitious]

I would imagine that the club would still have both players on the payroll, but with heavy fines for effectively going on strike. 

it would be interesting to see if what the punishment to Werder Bremen would be for playing an ineligible player, if that's proven to be the case. I can't imagine they will risk playing him until that's proven to be the case. 

I'd imagine Byrne is having a much more difficult time of it as he's likely to have only interest from English clubs. The EFL have already stated their stance on this situation so Byrne won't be able to play for another club without us releasing his registration. I'm really not sure why he's gone about it in the way he has, because he isn't getting a move to a top flight team like Buchanan (despite being the substantially better player) because he's an undersized 30 year full back who has played his entire career in the lower divisions. He might not even earn more money than he's currently getting paid by Derby. 

He would've been a very important player for us this season, a chance to build on his already respected reputation and he's chosen to throw that out of the window, s******* on the new owner and the fans in the process, so let's see what for? He could've just requested a transfer and been wished all the best. Shame.  

[Mihangel]

12 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I would imagine that the club would still have both players on the payroll, but with heavy fines for effectively going on strike. 

it would be interesting to see if what the punishment to Werder Bremen would be for playing an ineligible player, if that's proven to be the case. I can't imagine they will risk playing him until that's proven to be the case. 

I'd imagine Byrne is having a much more difficult time of it as he's likely to have only interest from English clubs. The EFL have already stated their stance on this situation so Byrne won't be able to play for another club without us releasing his registration. I'm really not sure why he's gone about it in the way he has, because he isn't getting a move to a top flight team like Buchanan (despite being the substantially better player) because he's an undersized 30 year full back who has played his entire career in the lower divisions. He might not even earn more money than he's currently getting paid by Derby. 

He would've been a very important player for us this season, a chance to build on his already respected reputation and he's chosen to throw that out of the window, s******* on the new owner and the fans in the process, so let's see what for? He could've just requested a transfer and been wished all the best. Shame.  

Yes - And now he's on Slack Alley, weak negotiating position because any potential suitor will know he's not going to be terribly welcome back here. Rat.

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

Those two contracts were extended by the club prior to its sale and done in line with their contracts - the new owner purchased those assets within the purchase price. sure they can say they don’t want to work for Derby county anymore but they can’t just walk out and play professional football anywhere else until Derby county are compensated to their satisfaction.

another minefield would have been if say Belick wanted out and the status of his contract and would the new Derby county be liable for any of debts due on him, then the football creditor rule kicks in from the EFL but are Derby county not a football creditor in this situation? - the wonderful EFL need to be speaking up on this so that ourselves and other clubs are aware of the EFL stance?

The new company are not liable for any debts, the debts stay with the old company that is in administration and the money David Clowes paid for the assets is used to settle them.

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

16 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I would imagine that the club would still have both players on the payroll, but with heavy fines for effectively going on strike. 

it would be interesting to see if what the punishment to Werder Bremen would be for playing an ineligible player, if that's proven to be the case. I can't imagine they will risk playing him until that's proven to be the case. 

I'd imagine Byrne is having a much more difficult time of it as he's likely to have only interest from English clubs. The EFL have already stated their stance on this situation so Byrne won't be able to play for another club without us releasing his registration. I'm really not sure why he's gone about it in the way he has, because he isn't getting a move to a top flight team like Buchanan (despite being the substantially better player) because he's an undersized 30 year full back who has played his entire career in the lower divisions. He might not even earn more money than he's currently getting paid by Derby. 

He would've been a very important player for us this season, a chance to build on his already respected reputation and he's chosen to throw that out of the window, s******* on the new owner and the fans in the process, so let's see what for? He could've just requested a transfer and been wished all the best. Shame.  

What we really need to know if The FA's view as they are the ones who would need to issue an International Transfer Certificate to grant international clearance, I suspect the EFL do have some input to this but not sure how much. Doubt very much FIFA will take action if a certificate is/was issued.

 

[Tyler Durden]

He's obviously been reading the book entitled effective transfer negotiations by Pierre van Hooijdonk

[TooFarInToTurnRed]

2 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

He's obviously been reading the book entitled effective transfer negotiations by Pierre van Hooijdonk

Let’s hope he doesn’t follow it up with Peter Odemwingie’s guide to football parking!

[Woodley Ram]

On 11/07/2022 at 09:39, rammieib said:

OOOoooOOO Interesting - I take back all my previous comments:

The old company was called THE DERBY COUNTY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED Company Reg 49139

The New company is called DERBY COUNTY (THE RAMS) LIMITED Company Reg 14190771 (Incorporated on the 23rd June).

So actually, all the assets and employees WILL have changed over to the new company - in better language, all the employees will have TUPE'd over to the new company.

So thus, the way I see it, any player was within their rights to reject the transfer. (Reasons stated above). My genuine question where I don't understand the law well enough - what makes Byrne/Buchanan special cases over any other player? The old business who employed them extended their contracts by another year. They could both refuse to transfer over and thus become unemployed. However - why couldn't other players refuse to transfer over? (Or could they have done)

Interesting.

 

 

The problem with TUPE is that it was never meant to cover football contracts, but needed to be generic so could catch everything to protect regular 9-5 workers. there have used the loophole where they can walk away, I guess the others had a bit more dignity and morals. interesting about a players registration, who owns it and when it has to be transferred. If the registration is not owned by the player but by the club so then is that still part of TUPE?  if not then we need to be paid to transfer the registration that still has a year to run? I'm sure Derby's lawyers are having a look at everything at the moment so lets see, my gut says that we will probably not have a case    

[PistoldPete]

On 11/07/2022 at 09:39, rammieib said:

OOOoooOOO Interesting - I take back all my previous comments:

The old company was called THE DERBY COUNTY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED Company Reg 49139

The New company is called DERBY COUNTY (THE RAMS) LIMITED Company Reg 14190771 (Incorporated on the 23rd June).

So actually, all the assets and employees WILL have changed over to the new company - in better language, all the employees will have TUPE'd over to the new company.

So thus, the way I see it, any player was within their rights to reject the transfer. (Reasons stated above). My genuine question where I don't understand the law well enough - what makes Byrne/Buchanan special cases over any other player? The old business who employed them extended their contracts by another year. They could both refuse to transfer over and thus become unemployed. However - why couldn't other players refuse to transfer over? (Or could they have done)

Interesting.

 

 

Buchanan and Byrne had contracts due to expire end of June so could talk to other clubs. If TUPE applies and players have right not to transfer then they are out of a job. those two knew they had other jobs lined up .. others do not. Plus they might have been expecting to leave at end of June anyway, until  their contracts were extended. 
 

 

[rammieib]

17 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

Buchanan and Byrne had contracts due to expire end of June so could talk to other clubs. If TUPE applies and players have right not to transfer then they are out of a job. those two knew they had other jobs lined up .. others do not. Plus they might have been expecting to leave at end of June anyway, until  their contracts were extended. 
 

 

If their Contracts were extended by the old DCFC company, then thats legal.

I imagine the player registration is an asset that was bought by Clowes and therefore was transferred.

The employee doesn't legally have to transfer but I don't see why their cases are different to anyone else.

Literally the only thing I can think of is if there was a line in their original contracts that states a company in Administration may not extend a contract between the club and the player. (Employer and employee). However I would be shocked if this was considered in the original Terms and Conditions.

On the date the contracts were exchanged, IMO (and I'm not privvy to details obviously), Buchanan and Byrne were contracted to DCFC and their player registrations were. 

They made themselves free agents, which I now believe they were legally able to do under TUPE but we should 100% retain their registration so thus, a transfer fee applies.

My other issue here - I don't know what a player registration consists off, and therefore, is there a clause in there which states a registration is only valid with a player under contract? Has anyone ever seen what a player registration document looks like?

Edited July 12, 2022 by rammieib

[ilkleyram]

25 minutes ago, Woodley Ram said:

The problem with TUPE is that it was never meant to cover football contracts, but needed to be generic so could catch everything to protect regular 9-5 workers. there have used the loophole where they can walk away, I guess the others had a bit more dignity and morals. interesting about a players registration, who owns it and when it has to be transferred. If the registration is not owned by the player but by the club so then is that still part of TUPE?  if not then we need to be paid to transfer the registration that still has a year to run? I'm sure Derby's lawyers are having a look at everything at the moment so lets see, my gut says that we will probably not have a case    

We do have a case.  The questions are a) whether it's a strong one and b) whether it's a case relevant to TUPE regulations, contract law or both.

Buchanan has obviously moved - in his head and probably physically; Byrne hasn't, so far as we know, but if he hasn't turned up for training and is effectively on strike then he's burning his bridges with a club and manager trying to develop a collective spirit to face the new season.  We need to settle both full back positions (and Fozzy may well be using the gap to his advantage in negotiations) so the argument is probably more about compensation owed than whether they were entitled to do what they have done.

And with Byrne, who, at the moment, is there to pay us anything?

[Ghost of Clough]

6 minutes ago, rammieib said:

If their Contracts were extended by the old DCFC company, then thats legal.

I imagine the player registration is an asset that was bought by Clowes and therefore was transferred.

The employee doesn't legally have to transfer but I don't see why their cases are different to anyone else.

Literally the only thing I can think of is if there was a line in their original contracts that states a company in Administration may not extend a contract between the club and the player. (Employer and employee). However I would be shocked if this was considered in the original Terms and Conditions.

On the date the contracts were exchanged, IMO (and I'm not privvy to details obviously), Buchanan and Byrne were contracted to DCFC and their player registrations were. 

They made themselves free agents, which I now believe they were legally able to do under TUPE but we should 100% retain their registration so thus, a transfer fee applies.

My other issue here - I don't know what a player registration consists off, and therefore, is there a clause in there which states a registration is only valid with a player under contract? Has anyone ever seen what a player registration document looks like?

Clubs can retain a youth player's registration even after they've left the club. The same should apply for Byrne considering we had 'registered' him for another year.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Ghost of Clough

[BuckoBeast]

How did he look against Bradford 

[hintonsboots]

4 minutes ago, BuckoBeast said:

How did he look against Bradford 

Didn’t play as he was busy at home reading TUPE regulations.

[Woodley Ram]

34 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

We do have a case.  The questions are a) whether it's a strong one and b) whether it's a case relevant to TUPE regulations, contract law or both.

Buchanan has obviously moved - in his head and probably physically; Byrne hasn't, so far as we know, but if he hasn't turned up for training and is effectively on strike then he's burning his bridges with a club and manager trying to develop a collective spirit to face the new season.  We need to settle both full back positions (and Fozzy may well be using the gap to his advantage in negotiations) so the argument is probably more about compensation owed than whether they were entitled to do what they have done.

And with Byrne, who, at the moment, is there to pay us anything?

Do we have a case, under TUPE for the contract no we don’t. If we do have a case it will be for the registration but I have no idea if we do

[AlvoRam!]

How can players be employees if they are considered chattels (buying and selling of players and all the other rules governing their existence)? Is working the same as playing? Looks to me like a can of "substance-over-form" worms.

[R@M]

Basically, TUPE states they can go and get another job, but DCFC hold the players’ registration to be able to play football. I hear Maccies are hiring.