Nathan Byrne - Joined Charlotte FC

[CBRammette]

Lots of TUPE analysis but has it been confirmed that their legal gripe is actually TUPE and not just that the club couldnt extend while we were in administration? 

[Jimbo Ram]

What’s his hair got to do with it ?

[alram]

17 hours ago, Sparkle said:

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 

if the company you work for goes into administration then extend your contract without consent we will see how you feel

[alram]

12 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Lots of TUPE analysis but has it been confirmed that their legal gripe is actually TUPE and not just that the club couldnt extend while we were in administration? 

its not as if Quantuma have ever acted either professionally or with any competence is it, this is just another example of that

[StarterForTen]

46 minutes ago, CBRammette said:

Lots of TUPE analysis but has it been confirmed that their legal gripe is actually TUPE and not just that the club couldnt extend while we were in administration? 

Indeed. Werder Bremen have acted as if Buchanan is a complete free agent - ie not in contract with another club, nor offered new terms - otherwise they would acknowledge development rights existed and would need to pay compensation. That suggests they believe that the extension could not be legally offered.

If Buchanan had used a TUPE option to walk away, by very definition he has rejected ongoing work and therefore development rights are intact.

[SamUltraRam]

9 minutes ago, StarterForTen said:

Indeed. Werder Bremen have acted as if Buchanan is a complete free agent - ie not in contract with another club, nor offered new terms - otherwise they would acknowledge development rights existed and would need to pay compensation. That suggests they believe that the extension could not be legally offered.

If Buchanan had used a TUPE option to walk away, by very definition he has rejected ongoing work and therefore development rights are intact.

Agreed, if Byrne & Buchanan have taken legal advice then it must be clear cut otherwise why take the risk if it was 50-50. They could still have just asked for a transfer anyway, no problem with that & we get some transfer money.

A bit crazy but I wonder if we're still paying them under the terms of the extension, otherwise they'll have a claim over unpaid wages which is a big issue. (This is assuming DCFC are fighting this with them both and wish to protect our position)

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by SamUltraRam

[StarterForTen]

6 minutes ago, SamUltraRam said:

I wonder if we're still paying them under the terms of the extension, otherwise they'll have a claim over unpaid wages which is a big issue. (This is assuming DCFC are fighting this with them both and wish to protect our position)

 

Probably still paying them... but fining them also for non-attendance!

[scout's dad]

Curtis, have a word with him!

[DCFC27]

1 hour ago, alram said:

if the company you work for goes into administration then extend your contract without consent we will see how you feel

Not really how it works. He signed a contract where we could extend if we decided. Tbh I speculate there was a clause that did the same from his side. It just doesn’t suit him to stay with us and he’s looking to get out of his contract. 
 Now he could have handed in a transfer request and told the club he doesn’t want to play for us which would have lead to us selling for a fee of some sort. 
However these two players have decided they want to go a step further, make themselves free agents and take a bigger wage/sign on bonus as there is a reduced cost. 
 

Both players could have forced a move, we would have received something. However they have done this to gain a bigger paycheque. 

[rammieib]

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.

 

 

[Elwood P Dowd]

11 hours ago, Tyler Durden said:

You don't have to give a reason why you are not accepting the TUPE transfer, all you have to do is state in writing that you are not accepting the transfer. 

It's every employees prerogative but by the same token by doing so they thereby waive any compensation or redundancy rights.

Think you are getting too bogged down in the minutiae. If TUPE applies in this case then any player just has to submit in writing that they do not wish to accept this therefore their employment ends on the date of the TUPE transfer. 

If that's the case with Byrne then it's irrelevant whether we hold his registration or not, he no longer is an employee of the club.

The Devil is always in the detail.

Players are not your ordinary employee

1. They have a termed contract

2. Those contracts have an asset value, the value of which is written down over the term of the contract, in the clubs accounts (other Amortisation methods are available ?)

3, The value of the player\contact has bearing on the overall value of the club

4. The players registration is held by the club

Are the players more of an Asset of the club than a straight forward employee, as they have a termed contact should they be allowed to simply walk away, its a complex issue.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Elwood P Dowd
spelling

[dcfcreece1601]

Can we close this thread so I don't have to keep seeing the low life's name 

[Carnero]

15 minutes ago, 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.

[Ghost of Clough]

44 minutes ago, 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.

 

 

TUPE doesn't really matter as we still hold their registrations. You buy the registration, not the player/contract.

I would have felt they're arguing over the extension being applied when in administration, rather than it being due to TUPE.

[PistoldPete]

36 minutes ago, Unlucky Alf said:

There's a multitude of reasons, Religious beliefs, Ethical beliefs, Geographical...ie new company moves further away, And so on, There's no law that I'm aware of forcing you to move over, The only recourse is resign before the move is finalised

You may be right Alf but the only reason these guys want off is they don’t fancy a year in Lrague One 

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, alram said:

if the company you work for goes into administration then extend your contract without consent we will see how you feel

He gave consent to his contract being extended when he signed the original one which is what was extended 

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, SamUltraRam said:

Agreed, if Byrne & Buchanan have taken legal advice then it must be clear cut otherwise why take the risk if it was 50-50. They could still have just asked for a transfer anyway, no problem with that & we get some transfer money.

A bit crazy but I wonder if we're still paying them under the terms of the extension, otherwise they'll have a claim over unpaid wages which is a big issue. (This is assuming DCFC are fighting this with them both and wish to protect our position)

 

Don’t have to pay them if they didn’t turn up for work which they haven’t I believe  ( and not off sick) 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Sparkle

[Sparkle]

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

The Devil is always in the detail.

Players are not your ordinary employee

1. They have a termed contract

2. Those contracts have an asset value, the value of which is written down over the term of the contract, in the clubs accounts (other Amortisation methods are available ?)

3, The value of the player\contact has bearing on the overall value of the club

4. The players registration is held by the club

Are the players more of an Asset of the club than a straight forward employee, as they have a termed contact should they be allowed to simply walk away, its a complex issue.

 

 

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?

[rammieib]

32 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

TUPE doesn't really matter as we still hold their registrations. You buy the registration, not the player/contract.

I would have felt they're arguing over the extension being applied when in administration, rather than it being due to TUPE.

GOC - Agree with this point which is why I hope both players are not permitted to play for any new club until their new clubs pay an agreed fee.

 

[Carnero]

27 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

TUPE doesn't really matter as we still hold their registrations. You buy the registration, not the player/contract.

I would have felt they're arguing over the extension being applied when in administration, rather than it being due to TUPE.

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!).