Nathan Byrne - Joined Charlotte FC

[Ram-a-lama fa fa fa]

6 hours ago, Ambitious said:

Very good point: A contract extension, but with the wage drop which wouldn't be completely out the question then. 

Nevertheless, as you say, relegation wasn't even a thought before Mel stopped paying the bills so unsure just how much mind he would've paid to it! 

didnt think of the wage drop. but he still signed the contract, which in it would have stated this

 

[Sparkle]

7 hours ago, Ambitious said:

Very good point: A contract extension, but with the wage drop which wouldn't be completely out the question then. 

Nevertheless, as you say, relegation wasn't even a thought before Mel stopped paying the bills so unsure just how much mind he would've paid to it! 

You can’t extend a contract by paying less money if it’s one that was already included in the original contract you can maintain the wage or increase it but not pay less which definitely seems the case here. If a contact ends you can then offer less money for a new one for example maybe in Forsyth case.

[RoyMac5]

8 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Unless there were some clauses involved. I can’t remember where I read, but some teams have an automatic 30% wage drop clause as a result of relegation, regardless of whether they are likely to go down or not.

Then again, knowing how clueless Mel was, he probably inserted every contract with a wage increase. 

How much do you think he'll get as a signing on fee being on a free as opposed to having to have a transfer fee paid? That's the point - it's like the transfer fee goes to Byrne.

[Donnyram]

10 hours ago, Gritstone Ram said:

I suspect that the next pay packet will be the turning point. If we pay him and he takes the money I suspect he is classed as being under contract. If we don’t he’s a free agent.

Pay him & then dock him the maximum number of weeks wages for going AWOL

[RadioactiveWaste]

In terms of his registration, wasn't the bosman ruling that clubs couldn't hold the registration to demand a fee if the player wasn't contracted?

[SFox1993]

11 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

In terms of his registration, wasn't the bosman ruling that clubs couldn't hold the registration to demand a fee if the player wasn't contracted?

But Derby's argument is that he IS contracted

[StarterForTen]

1 hour ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

In terms of his registration, wasn't the bosman ruling that clubs couldn't hold the registration to demand a fee if the player wasn't contracted?

There are also restraint of trade issues. You can’t stop someone from earning a living from practicing their recognised profession. 

[Wolfie20]

1 minute ago, StarterForTen said:

There are also restraint of trade issues. You can’t stop someone from earning a living from practicing their recognised profession. 

On that basis wouldn't every contract be meaningless? The key issue with Buchanan and Byrne seems to be whether the extension was permissible given the Clubs' change of ownership - if it was then surely they can't possibly have a valid case otherwise every contract can potentially be broken using restraint of trade as the reason.

[Crewton]

31 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

There are also restraint of trade issues. You can’t stop someone from earning a living from practicing their recognised profession. 

He's not being stopped from plying his trade. He was expected back at Derby to finish his contract.

[Ramarena]

14 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Unless there were some clauses involved. I can’t remember where I read, but some teams have an automatic 30% wage drop clause as a result of relegation, regardless of whether they are likely to go down or not.

Then again, knowing how clueless Mel was, he probably inserted every contract with a wage increase. 

I’m sure old Ben will be along shortly with a random blog telling us Byrnes exact wage!

[StarterForTen]

1 hour ago, Wolfie20 said:

On that basis wouldn't every contract be meaningless? The key issue with Buchanan and Byrne seems to be whether the extension was permissible given the Clubs' change of ownership - if it was then surely they can't possibly have a valid case otherwise every contract can potentially be broken using restraint of trade as the reason.

 

52 minutes ago, Crewton said:

He's not being stopped from plying his trade. He was expected back at Derby to finish his contract.

Of course, if he has a valid contract then there is no restraint; the point being made is about holding his registration if he is deemed not to be in contract, which is very likley to be within the boundaries of restraint of trade.

There has been quite a bit of chatter to suggest that the club can hold on to his registration without a contract and that can not happen - at least I don't think it can.

As I have said before, I doubt this dispute is over TUPE - that has most likely cropped up through lazy journalism. It is more likely to be contract law and that extension clauses within the contract may not have been legally triggered due to a change of control to one of the contracting parties or through an insolvency event.

Of course, pure speculation.

[Elwood P Dowd]

11 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

 

Of course, if he has a valid contract then there is no restraint; the point being made is about holding his registration if he is deemed not to be in contract, which is very likley to be within the boundaries of restraint of trade.

There has been quite a bit of chatter to suggest that the club can hold on to his registration without a contract and that can not happen - at least I don't think it can.

As I have said before, I doubt this dispute is over TUPE - that has most likely cropped up through lazy journalism. It is more likely to be contract law and that extension clauses within the contract may not have been legally triggered due to a change of control to one of the contracting parties or through an insolvency event.

Of course, pure speculation.

Its ether a restraint of trade by Derby

or

A breach of contract by Byrne

We simply don't know enough information to come to any sort of conclusion ?

 

[richinspain]

27 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

Its ether a restraint of trade by Derby

or

A breach of contract by Byrne

We simply don't know enough information to come to any sort of conclusion ?

 

Luckily for us the EFL will review the case, and then dock us 15 points!

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, StarterForTen said:

There are also restraint of trade issues. You can’t stop someone from earning a living from practicing their recognised profession. 

Yes you can when they have signed a contract to work for you and they can’t walk out of it without everyone’s agreement 

[Tyler Durden]

2 hours ago, StarterForTen said:

There are also restraint of trade issues. You can’t stop someone from earning a living from practicing their recognised profession. 

You can if it's with another employer when said employee is already contracted solely to work for their existing employer.

Perfectly reasonable.

[Woodley Ram]

2 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

On that basis wouldn't every contract be meaningless? The key issue with Buchanan and Byrne seems to be whether the extension was permissible given the Clubs' change of ownership - if it was then surely they can't possibly have a valid case otherwise every contract can potentially be broken using restraint of trade as the reason.

it is permissible, Derby were in there right to trigger the contract extensions for both and both were agreed by the EFL.  TUPE gives then a right to cancel their contracts is there is a significant change in working for the new employer, I don't that there is?

my only concern is that TUPE has rules around communication with employees, the takeover was so quick (in the end) that perhaps they are saying that it didn't take place.  

I think Derby have a strong case but who is liable for the breaches, the player or his future club. I notice that Derby have left both on the website as current players.  

If Derby were to sue the players then what could they ask? the salary for the year (as they would need to recruit a replacement),any potential 'lost' transfer fees (small with Byrne but large with Buchanan) and then there is something for 'harm'. 

Byrne must be worth circa £500-£1m and his wages another £500k. Buchanan must be worth £2.5-5m, wages £300k. We are probably looking at circa £4-5m here for both, at least 1m (including wages) for Byrne and at least £3.5m for Buchanan. In a court it could be more 

[Elwood P Dowd]

1 hour ago, richinspain said:

Luckily for us the EFL will review the case, and then dock us 15 points!

Yep, that's what will happen regardless of the rights and wrongs of the issues 

[i-Ram]

Came on here looking for actual and verifiable facts.  When will I learn.

[richinspain]

58 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Came on here looking for actual and verifiable facts.  When will I learn.

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

8 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

How much do you think he'll get as a signing on fee being on a free as opposed to having to have a transfer fee paid? That's the point - it's like the transfer fee goes to Byrne.

Basically what I said last night. Make life as uncomfortable as possible and he'll lose that nice signing on fee to us just to get out the door. That's money owed to us not him as far as I'm concerned.