• Join ccmfans.net

    ccmfans.net is the Central Coast Mariners fan community, and was formed in 2004, so basically the beginning of time for the Mariners. Things have changed a lot over the years, but one thing has remained constant and that is our love of the Mariners. People come and go, some like to post a lot and others just like to read. It's up to you how you participate in the community!

    If you want to get rid of this message, simply click on Join Now or head over to https://www.ccmfans.net/community/register/ to join the community! It only takes a few minutes, and joining will let you post your thoughts and opinions on all things Mariners, Football, and whatever else pops into your mind. If posting is not your thing, you can interact in other ways, including voting on polls, and unlock options only available to community members.

    ccmfans.net is not only for Mariners fans either. Most of us are bonded by our support for the Mariners, but if you are a fan of another club (except the Scum, come on, we need some standards), feel free to join and get into some banter.

Mariners squad HAL 10 ~ 2014/15

nebakke

Well-Known Member
For all we know, the club has already tried this on. If so, it would weaken our position enormously.

I'll acknowledge that the club can't exactly be seen as the oracle of all things reasonable but... IF this was the case, wouldn't you assume that they would have accepted this whole thing as soon as they got a sniff of it?

In spite of recent history, so far, I don't see much of an indication that the club has acted badly... The only thing might be that whole thing around the January return-date, but the way I read it was that that is the only date that they can force him to return...
That's still quite different to him going wherever he wants etc etc... But again, as previously stated, IANFPM ;)
 

dibo

Well-Known Member
Look, it's total speculation, but presumably if you need to 're-sign' all your players, then potentially you could *not* re-sign one or two that haven't worked out. If the club has tried that, its moral and legal arguments must surely be lost.
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
For all we know, the club has already tried this on. If so, it would weaken our position enormously.
If the club had tried that on you would have heard of it.
The player would have the same articles out except in reverse. How dare CCM cancel my contract Blah Blah Blah & the PFA would be going yeah you need to pay him.

No way the club has tried to cut a player without the players agreement.

However the return date is looking like the only thing the club can enforce so maybe that's why they quote it instead of saying come back now
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
I think we are quite a strong position I know if I went to court or arbitration whose position I would wanta be in.


The Mariners Case

There was at one stage a contract between MC & the club.

Under FIFA rules and regulations my understanding is after a change in ownerships the contract with players remains the same.

If for the sake of an argument MC had been injured in Japan would the Mariners have had to pay the balance of his contract and I assume yes … if injured and the contract is valid why would an offer from another club make the contract invalid.

The Mariners at no stage said on any official or non official platform that the contract was terminated.

The Mariners said very publicly when they let Flores go we have a number of players who can play 10 and I think MC name was mentioned in the players we had who could play a number 10.

The Nix never approached the Mariners before signed MC to get our opinion.

From what we are told MC never approached us.


The Nix’s case

MC unlike the other players had not signed a new contract with the new entity.

Defence against this..

The Mariners were waiting on his return to Australia so he could have local legal advice, something he could not get in Japan or get at a reasonable cost.

The Mariners were waiting for the contract in Japan to run out.

The Mariners always intended when MC returned to Australia for a new contract to be signed.


Other issues

A player was signed when there was no official clearance, and no certainty that he was a free agent, most reasonable legal folk would say some test should have been carried out.

The action of taking him to training and issuing photos of him training … a number of media releases ..

To an independent panel at the AFC these actions could be seen as aggressive and unreasonable given the Mariners saying he is our player under contract and in line with FIFA precedents.
 

shipwreck

Well-Known Member
I remember bringing this up earlier, as soon as I learned of the contract crap.

If FFA don't support our case, they are green lighting a much bigger loophole in the system and basically conforming a way that clubs can get rid of shit players.

Paying too much? Let's change owners, sorry mate your contract isn't valid, don't run to the PFA, they just backed another player it happened to, don't run to the FFA they stood by and did nothing.

Let them set this prescident, watch the shit storm
 

rbakersmith

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if a similar term exists in the Standard Player Contract for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons, but the contract for 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons contained the following clause:

11.5 If the Club's Participation Agreement is terminated or if its licence to field a team in the A-League is otherwise cancelled or suspended, FFA may (without consent) novate or assign this contract to any nominee and, if requested, you must enter into an agreement with the assignee to be bound to the assignee on the terms of this Contract as if the assignee had been named in this Contract in place of the Club.

Club is defined at the beginning of the contract as the legal entity (in our case Central Coast Mariners FC Pty Ltd), so if there was a change in licence holder (to, say, Central Coast Mariners Foundation Limited) the Mariners may be relying on this (or a similar) clause to hold McGlinchey to the remainder of his contract.
 

sydmariner

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if a similar term exists in the Standard Player Contract for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons, but the contract for 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons contained the following clause:



Club is defined at the beginning of the contract as the legal entity (in our case Central Coast Mariners FC Pty Ltd), so if there was a change in licence holder (to, say, Central Coast Mariners Foundation Limited) the Mariners may be relying on this (or a similar) clause to hold McGlinchey to the remainder of his contract.
:popcorn:
 

gull

Well-Known Member
"Mediation" to me implies that we aren't in a strong position. What is there to discuss if we believe we hold a contract - nothing.

Personally I think the club realise that they've f..cked up big time, and they are holding out as long as possible to make it look like it wasn't their error that caused this situation.

There'll be some announcement to say that after mediation they've kindly agreed to let him have his wishes because they are so nice. This way they come out of it looking good, rather than copping it for having made one of the biggest mistakes any club could make - ever.

I also think the McGlinchey "going home" story is BS. Until he was picked for NZ (only after playing so well for us who found him in SCOTLAND) I doubt he even knew where NZ was...
 

nebakke

Well-Known Member
"Mediation" to me implies that we aren't in a strong position. What is there to discuss if we believe we hold a contract - nothing.

Dunno though, thing is... Dragging him to court will take forever and I think we all know, by now, that the better option will probably end up being, him leaving (the backstabbing bastard!).
But! The thing is that we might have an enforceable contract etc. etc... But right now, Phoenix and WeeMac seem to be ignoring it, along with the PFA... A contract is only as enforceable as the framework around it... Remember, this is not a criminal matter, so it's not like the club could call the police and have them stop WeeMac from playing.
So until such a time when the FFA enforces the contract for us, we don't stand much of a chance of actually enforcing the contract other than running a long, drawn-out legal battle, while potentially watching WeeMac play for Phoenix because they are "confident" that they have everything in order.
If the case runs for years, what's the point, if he's retired for example?

Besides, don't most legal battles start with mediation, if nothing else then simply because it's cheaper? (IANAL either ;) )
 

shipwreck

Well-Known Member
I can't see this being let to drag out any longer than pre season, Phoenix won't field him until it's squared away.
The training and twitter PR is just a publicity stunt
 

pjennings

Well-Known Member
I'm just over this. I really enjoy watching Wee-Mac but if he goes - he goes. If he stays I just hope he performs for us. Suarez was a pouty shit who hated Liverpool when they were out here last year. However, he certainly kept a lot of Liverpool fans happy last season.

Players come and go, managers come and go, owners come and go. As long as the club stays on the Coast I will be happy.

My question is more to why the change of title? I'd love to know the reasoning and whether the reason is a positive or a negative for the club being viable on the Coast.
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if a similar term exists in the Standard Player Contract for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons, but the contract for 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons contained the following clause:



Club is defined at the beginning of the contract as the legal entity (in our case Central Coast Mariners FC Pty Ltd), so if there was a change in licence holder (to, say, Central Coast Mariners Foundation Limited) the Mariners may be relying on this (or a similar) clause to hold McGlinchey to the remainder of his contract.
Not sure that rule applies as there was no termination, cancellation or suspension & the FFA has the right not the club.

That clause is more if a club goes under eg. GC or the Jets & the league takes over until the end of the year. It's saying the FFA inherits the contract & they can make you for fill it why they try & find another buyer.

I am not a lawyer but that is my interpretation of the clause.
 

Big Al

Well-Known Member
"Mediation" to me implies that we aren't in a strong position. What is there to discuss if we believe we hold a contract - nothing.

...
Mediation is an attempt to get the parties to come to an agreement without going to court.
We have a contract that we want for filled from the 1st Jan.
Weemac doesn't want to & beleive he has a legal reason to support him other than I just don't want to.

So the parties need to argue so they can try & sort it out.

Mediation has nothing to do with who is right or wrong. It is really a first step in the legal process.
 

rbakersmith

Well-Known Member
Not sure that rule applies as there was no termination, cancellation or suspension & the FFA has the right not the club.

That clause is more if a club goes under eg. GC or the Jets & the league takes over until the end of the year. It's saying the FFA inherits the contract & they can make you for fill it why they try & find another buyer.

I am not a lawyer but that is my interpretation of the clause.

Assigning the CCM licence to a new entity would by necessity terminate the licence with the current entity - you can't have two companies holding the right to operate as "Central Coast Mariners" at the same time.
 

midfielder

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure if a similar term exists in the Standard Player Contract for the 2013/14 and 2014/15 seasons, but the contract for 2011/12 and 2012/13 seasons contained the following clause:



Club is defined at the beginning of the contract as the legal entity (in our case Central Coast Mariners FC Pty Ltd), so if there was a change in licence holder (to, say, Central Coast Mariners Foundation Limited) the Mariners may be relying on this (or a similar) clause to hold McGlinchey to the remainder of his contract.

I assume MC was signed in 2012 /13 for 3 years ... can anyone confirm... if so that clause is valid ..
 

Online statistics

Members online
25
Guests online
353
Total visitors
378

Forum statistics

Threads
6,832
Messages
401,096
Members
2,790
Latest member
Gotham01@
Top