Nathan Byrne - Joined Charlotte FC

[Sparkle]

Very disappointed by this and Buchanan I struggled to work out why Bryne didn’t play some games at the end of the season to be replaced at right back by either knight or Ebosele, maybe this had something to do with it.

if we hold the registration then surely we have to be compensated to our agreement from whoever takes them on as players and the EFL and the FA has to back us up and I would like to know the position of the PFA as well because they can’t eat the cake from both ends. 
I expect Stoke to sign Bryne as they have been mentioned several times with him - I suggest they don’t want to pay either 

we definitely need a couple of players who can play right back as well as a left back in addition to needing the dependable Forsyth 

[BodminRam]

What is it with Derby players  (ex) with a surname beginning with B, Bamford / Buchanan / Bryne, All should have another surname beginning with B IMO lol

[whiteroseram]

12 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

Very disappointed by this and Buchanan I struggled to work out why Bryne didn’t play some games at the end of the season to be replaced at right back by either knight or Ebosele, maybe this had something to do with it.

if we hold the registration then surely we have to be compensated to our agreement from whoever takes them on as players and the EFL and the FA has to back us up and I would like to know the position of the PFA as well because they can’t eat the cake from both ends. 
I expect Stoke to sign Bryne as they have been mentioned several times with him - I suggest they don’t want to pay either 

we definitely need a couple of players who can play right back as well as a left back in addition to needing the dependable Forsyth 

I think you're right the registration is the crux of our argument, and like @angieram says the EFL are supporting us on this, they need to keep the sanctity of registrations in place otherwise the whole EFL business model goes out of the window

I think the EFL are arguing you can be employed by whoever, but if they don't hold your registration then you're not playing. As we've seen a couple of times with Barca, you can employ a player and just be waiting to register him, but he can't play until you have 

I expect it'll be settled with a disappointing amount of compensation as no point keeping him around

[Dcfcsr92]

27 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

I do too but then saying he isn’t any good isn’t the case is it. I hope that we get some kind of fee for both. On the subject of being any good, I didn’t actually rate Buchanan and never have. Nothing to do with him acting improperly ?

I didn't mean it as he isn't any good questionable sometimes defensively but attacking very got with a very good delivery I just think we can find find someone with similar ability as he's not premier League quality that's why I said he's a good championship player 

[Jimbo Ram]

1 minute ago, Dcfcsr92 said:

I didn't mean it as he isn't any good questionable sometimes defensively but attacking very got with a very good delivery I just think we can find find someone with similar ability as he's not premier League quality that's why I said he's a good championship player 

I think we will do very well to get a like for like replacement of his quality. A steady young replacement with room for improvement would do me ?

[alram]

good luck to him.

 

the guy is quality and gave us a great service.

 

if the club have been extending contracts without players consent then do you blame them for being off? 

[Sparkle]

6 minutes ago, alram said:

good luck to him.

 

the guy is quality and gave us a great service.

 

if the club have been extending contracts without players consent then do you blame them for being off? 

If it’s in the contract that it can be extended then the player has agreed it can happen and it happens all the time in football 

[Sparkle]

27 minutes ago, whiteroseram said:

I think you're right the registration is the crux of our argument, and like @angieram says the EFL are supporting us on this, they need to keep the sanctity of registrations in place otherwise the whole EFL business model goes out of the window

I think the EFL are arguing you can be employed by whoever, but if they don't hold your registration then you're not playing. As we've seen a couple of times with Barca, you can employ a player and just be waiting to register him, but he can't play until you have 

I expect it'll be settled with a disappointing amount of compensation as no point keeping him around

I agree in that there is no point keeping him but we need money for his transfer of registration as we have to replace him and we have to do that in a restricted business plan - not easy 

Edited July 10, 2022 by Sparkle

[rammieib]

I’m going to keep saying this. This isn’t TUPE. His employer hasn’t changed - it was Derby County Football Club before Clowes owned it and AFTER Clowes owned it. 
 

Same with EVERY football team that gets taken over. The ownership of the club changes but the football club (and specifically the legal identity of the business) remains the same.

So let me give you an example of what TUPE is. For instance Derby County subcontract the cleaning of their offices to a company, let’s say that company is called Mitie. Then DCFC run a tender for the cleaning of their offices and the new company awarded the work is called OCS, those individuals who were employees of Mitie will be TUPE’d over to OCS. Their rights are protected (salary, contracts, benefits etc) but their employer changes.

In this takeover of Derby, the players are not employed by Clowes Development Ltd!

So honestly I have no idea how Buchanan and Byrne are doing this legally.

[Crewton]

8 minutes ago, alram said:

if the club have been extending contracts without players consent then do you blame them for being off? 

As I understand it, they're one year options that get triggered at the club's initiative. Some options require mutual consent, AFAIIA these don't. The EFL also approved them, which is apparently why they're supporting the club in pursuing compensation.

They signed the contracts willingly with those clauses in them. It's all about personal greed on the part of the player and their agent, and opportunism on the part of the clubs.

Brace yourself - DCFC aren't in the wrong here.

[Carnero]

4 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I’m going to keep saying this. This isn’t TUPE. His employer hasn’t changed - it was Derby County Football Club before Clowes owned it and AFTER Clowes owned it. 
 

Same with EVERY football team that gets taken over. The ownership of the club changes but the football club (and specifically the legal identity of the business) remains the same.

So let me give you an example of what TUPE is. For instance Derby County subcontract the cleaning of their offices to a company, let’s say that company is called Mitie. Then DCFC run a tender for the cleaning of their offices and the new company awarded the work is called OCS, those individuals who were employees of Mitie will be TUPE’d over to OCS. Their rights are protected (salary, contracts, benefits etc) but their employer changes.

In this takeover of Derby, the players are not employed by Clowes Development Ltd!

So honestly I have no idea how Buchanan and Byrne are doing this legally.

I thought that the business and assets of The Derby County Football Club Limited were being transferred to Derby County (The Rams) Limited as a result if coming out of administration, hence TUPE applying.

It's not a normal takeover, it's a purchase out of administration.

[Gaspode]

13 minutes ago, alram said:

good luck to him.

 

the guy is quality and gave us a great service.

 

if the club have been extending contracts without players consent then do you blame them for being off? 

Both players signed contracts that included an optional year that the club could choose to activate. The club took up the option and both players are trying to weasel their way out of those contracts - they deserve to be treated with the upmost contempt....

The message is quite simple - don't sign a contract if you don't intend to honour it.

I'm far from convinced that TUPE applies in this situation but regardless of that, we own their registrations and any club that signs them should be found guilty of tapping them up. If they're really determined to leave, I'm sure we'll be happy if they want to pay up the remainding year of their contacts....

[Dcfcsr92]

33 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

I think we will do very well to get a like for like replacement of his quality. A steady young replacement with room for improvement would do me ?

I agree mate but look at losing wingers then ebiowei he came in and smashed it there's players out their it's just finding them

[Elwood P Dowd]

33 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I’m going to keep saying this. This isn’t TUPE. His employer hasn’t changed - it was Derby County Football Club before Clowes owned it and AFTER Clowes owned it. 
 

Same with EVERY football team that gets taken over. The ownership of the club changes but the football club (and specifically the legal identity of the business) remains the same.

So let me give you an example of what TUPE is. For instance Derby County subcontract the cleaning of their offices to a company, let’s say that company is called Mitie. Then DCFC run a tender for the cleaning of their offices and the new company awarded the work is called OCS, those individuals who were employees of Mitie will be TUPE’d over to OCS. Their rights are protected (salary, contracts, benefits etc) but their employer changes.

In this takeover of Derby, the players are not employed by Clowes Development Ltd!

So honestly I have no idea how Buchanan and Byrne are doing this legally.

I agree, I doubt that this is Tupe for this reason.

If DC purchased the club by a share acquisition then the legal entity which employs the players has not changed,  so all employees existing T&C’s remain as is. The players and staff are, in effect, employed by the legal entity rather the the owners of the company shares

If DC had purchased a part of the club then Tupe would most probably apply.

There is something here that is not quite as it may seem.

Edited July 10, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd
Spelling

[Sparkle]

22 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I’m going to keep saying this. This isn’t TUPE. His employer hasn’t changed - it was Derby County Football Club before Clowes owned it and AFTER Clowes owned it. 
 

Same with EVERY football team that gets taken over. The ownership of the club changes but the football club (and specifically the legal identity of the business) remains the same.

So let me give you an example of what TUPE is. For instance Derby County subcontract the cleaning of their offices to a company, let’s say that company is called Mitie. Then DCFC run a tender for the cleaning of their offices and the new company awarded the work is called OCS, those individuals who were employees of Mitie will be TUPE’d over to OCS. Their rights are protected (salary, contracts, benefits etc) but their employer changes.

In this takeover of Derby, the players are not employed by Clowes Development Ltd!

So honestly I have no idea how Buchanan and Byrne are doing this legally.

It’s worth noting that we have got used to statements from the EFL over anything - they are still silent on this yet they are making statements about Birmingham city not having new owners which isn’t actually new information 

[Jimbo Ram]

28 minutes ago, rammieib said:

I’m going to keep saying this. This isn’t TUPE. His employer hasn’t changed - it was Derby County Football Club before Clowes owned it and AFTER Clowes owned it. 
 

Same with EVERY football team that gets taken over. The ownership of the club changes but the football club (and specifically the legal identity of the business) remains the same.

So let me give you an example of what TUPE is. For instance Derby County subcontract the cleaning of their offices to a company, let’s say that company is called Mitie. Then DCFC run a tender for the cleaning of their offices and the new company awarded the work is called OCS, those individuals who were employees of Mitie will be TUPE’d over to OCS. Their rights are protected (salary, contracts, benefits etc) but their employer changes.

In this takeover of Derby, the players are not employed by Clowes Development Ltd!

So honestly I have no idea how Buchanan and Byrne are doing this legally.

Is it TUPE related ?

[EnigmaRam]

Will be interesting to see what business we do with these two’s agencies in the future 

[Ghost of Clough]

49 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Will be interesting to see what business we do with these two’s agencies in the future 

World in motion. Aden Flint being one player they represent, Morgan Whittaker another.

We can probably rule out a couple of keeper options too - Smithies and Trueman

[rammieib]

2 hours ago, Carnero said:

I thought that the business and assets of The Derby County Football Club Limited were being transferred to Derby County (The Rams) Limited as a result if coming out of administration, hence TUPE applying.

It's not a normal takeover, it's a purchase out of administration.

I’ll check tomorrow when I log in at work. I have access to some of this info. I’m pretty sure the business identity was renamed but still the same company.

[Elwood P Dowd]

3 hours ago, Carnero said:

I thought that the business and assets of The Derby County Football Club Limited were being transferred to Derby County (The Rams) Limited as a result if coming out of administration, hence TUPE applying.

It's not a normal takeover, it's a purchase out of administration.

If it is Business and Assets then TUPE would apply.