Nathan Byrne - Joined Charlotte FC

[jono]

2 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

It’s been sometime since I beat anyone to anything, my 100 yards time would be best timed with a calendar ? ?

I remember you, epic performance at Stamford Bridge 10.66 wasn’t it ? Don’t be modest. ? 

[Elwood P Dowd]

1 hour ago, jono said:

I remember you, epic performance at Stamford Bridge 10.66 wasn’t it ? Don’t be modest. ? 

I cannot tell a lie it was a photo finish, for first, between me and Harald Hardrada, Harold Godwinson came third.

Harold Godwinson later came a close second to a guy called William from Normandy at a meeting in Hastings

Edited July 24, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[Ram-Alf]

31 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

I cannot tell a lie it was a photo finish, for first, between me and Harald Hardrada, Harold Godwinson came third.

Harold Godwinson later came a close second to a guy called William from Normandy at a meeting in Hastings

Didn't Tostig Godwinson get disqualified for a false start?

[Elwood P Dowd]

8 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Didn't Tostig Godwinson get disqualified for a false start?

No, he came 2nd in a dead heat with Hardrada, Harold Godwinson beat them both ?

Edited July 24, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[Ram-Alf]

10 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

No, he came 2nd in a dead heat with Hardrada, Harold Godwinson beat them both ?

Ah yes I remember now, They were asleep after partying, Left all their weapons behind and took a good kicking at Stamford Bridge, Then HG did a 250 mile victory parade back to Hastings...the rest is history, If only there was some needlework that was made about the events when HG got back ?‍♀️

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Didn't Tostig Godwinson get disqualified for a false start?

Changed teams and played for sea wolves 

[Tyler Durden]

7 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

If Byrne is getting paid and he is accepting it then, by his conduct, he is also accepting his contact with the club is valid.

He can’t have it both ways, a non valid contract and payment by the club.

That's actually not true. When someone has their contract changed and they don't agree to that change they can put in writing that they are working under protest of the change.

This then sets aside the scenario which you are implying which is if the employee is taking the employers wages they therefore by implication are accepting the terms of the employers contract.

This will remain in place until a resolution can be found. 

So yes Byrne is perfectly legally entitled to accept payment from DCFC as long as he has stated that he is working under protest of the contract change.

 

[Elwood P Dowd]

9 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

That's actually not true. When someone has their contract changed and they don't agree to that change they can put in writing that they are working under protest of the change.

This then sets aside the scenario which you are implying which is if the employee is taking the employers wages they therefore by implication are accepting the terms of the employers contract.

This will remain in place until a resolution can be found. 

So yes Byrne is perfectly legally entitled to accept payment from DCFC as long as he has stated that he is working under protest of the contract change.

 

According to reports he isn't working so how would any of the above apply?

Edited July 24, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd

[Tyler Durden]

Just now, Elwood P Dowd said:

But he isn't working so how would any of the the above apply?

Because there might be some local agreement between Byrne and the club as part of the working under protest mediation that only those two parties are aware of.

Same point still stands - just because Byrne is getting paid by Derby DOES NOT mean he is accepting the terms and conditions of his contract. 

[Elwood P Dowd]

26 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Because there might be some local agreement between Byrne and the club as part of the working under protest mediation that only those two parties are aware of.

Same point still stands - just because Byrne is getting paid by Derby DOES NOT mean he is accepting the terms and conditions of his contract. 

Remember that Byrne is a Termed Contract employee I understand that his augment is based on the validity of the entirety of his contract rather than any single aspect of it.

How can he agree something locally when he disputes that the whole contact that binds him to the employing party is invalid, from that point there is no real basis for any future agreement.

The contract is, or isn’t, valid that’s the only issue, if Byrne is accepting payment against  a contract which he considers invalid then he has, by his conduct, been deemed to have accepted the contract.

I would doubt that Byrne is being paid as I would suspect, according to the reports of him not turning up for training, breached the terms of the contact himself.

Have a search on Google for Acceptance by Conduct contract Law UK there’s plenty of case law on there. 

[Tyler Durden]

10 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

Remember that Byrne is a Termed Contract employee I understand that his augment is based on the validity of the entirety of his contract rather than any single aspect of it.

How can he agree something locally when he disputes that the whole contact that binds him to the employing party is invalid, from that point there is no real basis for any future agreement.

The contract is, or isn’t, valid that’s the only issue, if Byrne is accepting payment against  a contract which he considers invalid then he has, by his conduct, been deemed to have accepted the contract.

I would doubt that Byrne is being paid as I would suspect, according to the reports of him not turning up for training, breached the terms of the contact himself.

Have a search on Google for Acceptance by Conduct contract Law UK there’s plenty of case law on there. 

Sorry, but what you've just said isn't true again 

Google working under protest ACAS which will tell you how a UK employee does not have to accept a change to their employment contract but will still be paid by their employer without prejudice if you don't accept what I'm saying.

I've also had many years experience in dealing with such instances during my career so quite baffled why you choose not to accept this as fact. 

Byrne and DCFC can quite feasibly be in a period of mediation whilst both parties try and come to a satisfactory resolution and during this period the agreement again quite feasibly could be that Byrne does not play for the club during this timeframe if a resolution is expected in the short or medium term.

[jono]

2 hours ago, Unlucky Alf said:

Didn't Tostig Godwinson get disqualified for a false start?

Never played again … until we signed him on a free. But who needs a Norwegian CB when we’ve got Curtis.

Then again, “Good Win Son” isn’t bad name for a player when all is said and done 

bloomeng eck I wish Saturday would hurry up, I’m getting a bit weird ?

[Elwood P Dowd]

11 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

Sorry, but what you've just said isn't true again 

Google working under protest ACAS which will tell you how a UK employee does not have to accept a change to their employment contract but will still be paid by their employer without prejudice if you don't accept what I'm saying.

I've also had many years experience in dealing with such instances during my career so quite baffled why you choose not to accept this as fact. 

Byrne and DCFC can quite feasibly be in a period of mediation whilst both parties try and come to a satisfactory resolution and during this period the agreement again quite feasibly could be that Byrne does not play for the club during this timeframe if a resolution is expected in the short or medium term.

It isn’t a change in the terms of the contract it’s the validity, the legal standing, of the whole contract, this isn’t an issue of mediation it’s a matter of contact law.

[Tyler Durden]

2 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

It isn’t a change in the terms of the contract it’s the validity, the legal standing, of the whole contract, this isn’t an issue of mediation it’s a matter of contact law.

You stated:

The contract is, or isn’t, valid that’s the only issue, if Byrne is accepting payment against  a contract which he considers invalid then he has, by his conduct, been deemed to have accepted the contract.

You can work under protest in the face of a contract you deem invalid and still get paid by your employer without the implication that by accepting payment you therefore are accepting the terms of said contract. 

Byrne quite realistically can be doing this however quite rightly only himself and his employer would be party to this agreement.

What concerns me about your posts isn't so much the factual content of them but that they could be absorbed by other members of this forum to then form a totally unjust and jaundiced view of Byrne.

He quite rightly has said nothing neither has the club as if he is trying to mediate this with them then it is no one else's business but themselves which is the totally appropriate way to conduct matters.

Anyhows not going to inflict a banal UK employment law ping pong match on other forum members so all I request is folks keep an open mind until all the facts surrounding the matter come out rather than listen to heresay and opinion. 

 

[jono]

8 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

You stated:

The contract is, or isn’t, valid that’s the only issue, if Byrne is accepting payment against  a contract which he considers invalid then he has, by his conduct, been deemed to have accepted the contract.

You can work under protest in the face of a contract you deem invalid and still get paid by your employer without the implication that by accepting payment you therefore are accepting the terms of said contract. 

Byrne quite realistically can be doing this however quite rightly only himself and his employer would be party to this agreement.

What concerns me about your posts isn't so much the factual content of them but that they could be absorbed by other members of this forum to then form a totally unjust and jaundiced view of Byrne.

He quite rightly has said nothing neither has the club as if he is trying to mediate this with them then it is no one else's business but themselves which is the totally appropriate way to conduct matters.

Anyhows not going to inflict a banal UK employment law ping pong match on other forum members so all I request is folks keep an open mind until all the facts surrounding the matter come out rather than listen to heresay and opinion. 

 

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. 

[Crewton]

Byrne's contract hasn't changed though - the club simply extended by triggering the additional year option. So Byrne is objecting to being held to that contract, claiming the club was not entitled to trigger the extension clause, not the terms of it (because he agreed to those when he signed it). 

If he's still being paid, the club are acting correctly, because they believe the contract is valid, but if he's accepting the payment without fulfilling his obligations, he's in breach of contract and the club has the right to fine him under the terms of his contract. 

[PistoldPete]

23 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Byrne's contract hasn't changed though - the club simply extended by triggering the additional year option. So Byrne is objecting to being held to that contract, claiming the club was not entitled to trigger the extension clause, not the terms of it (because he agreed to those when he signed it). 

If he's still being paid, the club are acting correctly, because they believe the contract is valid, but if he's accepting the payment without fulfilling his obligations, he's in breach of contract and the club has the right to fine him under the terms of his contract. 

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.   

[rammieib]

1 hour ago, Crewton said:

Byrne's contract hasn't changed though - the club simply extended by triggering the additional year option. So Byrne is objecting to being held to that contract, claiming the club was not entitled to trigger the extension clause, not the terms of it (because he agreed to those when he signed it). 

If he's still being paid, the club are acting correctly, because they believe the contract is valid, but if he's accepting the payment without fulfilling his obligations, he's in breach of contract and the club has the right to fine him under the terms of his contract. 

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.

 

[Crewton]

3 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.

 

No, we don't know the details of the dispute. All we really know is that he apparently isn't turning up for work and wants to tear up his Contract so he can get a new club and a signing-on fee. 

[Woodley Ram]

2 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. 

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.