Mariners squad HAL 10 ~ 2014/15

[Roy Law]

as the famous bay 16 chant goes NO ONE RATES US BUT WE DON'T CARE

I am sure I heard that at Millwall some years back; it is encouraging to hear that the Poms are copying us

 

[Wombat]

At Millwall it was...."no one likes us".......and no one did.

The Den was a scary place.

 

[bikinigirl]

I'm curious - several people have thoughts that having Weemac back now could push us over the cap. is this known or guessed at because of the Jan 1 thing? it's just if we're looking for 3 new players doesn't that suggest there's cap space available?

. there is a number of indicators ... but the Jan 1st thing is the most obvious clue. probably our most accomplished player ever ... why would you not jump at the chance to have him for the first half of the season ... and just as importantly the pre-season

. instead the club is effectively saying ... no, we will welcome you back (presumably) unfit to sit on the bench for the second half of the season and then leave even more pissed off on a free transfer - speaks volumes to me

 

[Roy Law]

.

. i feel really uneasy about how all of this has been handled, or mis-handled. there have been many contributing factors and imo they can all be placed at the feet of fund-raising or penny-pinching – a couple to consider:

• having our long-term CEO replaced by the former owner on an interim basis
• removing Lawrie from his role as Football Director and this role incorporated into Arnie’s responsibilities
• is there any wonder we either don’t know or have been screwed over by the contractual situation?

At Millwall it was...."no one likes us".......and no one did.

The Den was a scary place.

The New Den remains very scary; I go there occasionally with my Millwall son-in-law. I would never go to watch Millwall on my own.

 

[sydmariner]

The Den was a scary place.

brisbane meow

 

[Golly]

i am thinking in season 10, ccm can go all the way to win the GF
settled squad of players and staff
will work together even better this season
we are back to the days of flying under the radar
just gotta get past january transfer window unskathed

 

[sydmariner]

i am thinking in season 10, ccm can go all the way to win the GF
settled squad of players and staff
will work together even better this season
we are back to the days of flying under the radar
just gotta get past january transfer window unskathed

we don't need weemac to win the gf

 

[scottmac]

I've been pouring over all the contract stuff & all standard player contracts are held by the FFA. The only way in which a contract becomes void (other than by non payment or failing to abide by the SPC) is if a club has its licence removed or the participation agreement is cancelled . Then the FFA holds the right to transfer that contract to any nominee without consent.
So in the case of the Mariners neither of those had occurred. (although there might be an argument about payment)
Also the contract is signed by the club. Not the clubs owner or the entity.

So in the case of our owner situation changing, the contract is still valid with the FFA & may be transferred to whom ever they choose.

I get the feeling some people are being used to spread false information. In any case it's unusual for a story like this to not have come out in the media yet.

 

[dibo]

The only way in which a contract becomes void (other than by non payment or failing to abide by the SPC) is if a club has its licence removed or the participation agreement is cancelled . Then the FFA holds the right to transfer that contract to any nominee without consent.
So in the case of the Mariners neither of those had occurred. (although there might be an argument about payment)
Also the contract is signed by the club. Not the clubs owner or the entity.

*If* the stuff about the licence and all is correct, then my assumption is that the FFA has removed the licence from the original company and/or cancelled the participation agreement (there's no reason this might not happen voluntarily) and the licence transferred to and a new participation agreement struck with the new company.

That means that the process can be triggered to move the players, however the second part would be the problem: surely the FFA holds the contracts and then assigns them to the nominee (i.e. the new company). "Without consent" surely means that there need not be a new signature.

 

[eenfish]

we don't need weemac to win the gf

Nah we don't

 

[scottmac]

I believe the participation agreement is for CCM. It will still stand unchanged. The licence may have changed hands but as I said before the signature on the players contract is from the club, ie:CCM, not the company that owns the licence.
This then explains more as FFA own all the rights to club names, colours etc, etc do they not? Therfore having a contract signed by the club & not the individual owners keeps the contract with the FFA & not with third parties. Is that way off?

 

[scoober]

I believe the participation agreement is for CCM. It will still stand unchanged. The licence may have changed hands but as I said before the signature on the players contract is from the club, ie:CCM, not the company that owns the licence.
This then explains more as FFA own all the rights to club names, colours etc, etc do they not? Therfore having a contract signed by the club & not the individual owners keeps the contract with the FFA & not with third parties. Is that way off?

It sounds about right. CCM is a "Franchise" of the FFA. Club owners have a licence to operate the Franchise which is CCM, bound by the fact they stay inside the terms of the licence agreement set out. You could never OWN CCM the brand unless FFA gave up governing rights or their control of the A-League (unlike EPL which is run by an independent authority).

 

[Big Al]

I've been pouring over all the contract stuff & all standard player contracts are held by the FFA. The only way in which a contract becomes void (other than by non payment or failing to abide by the SPC) is if a club has its licence removed or the participation agreement is cancelled . Then the FFA holds the right to transfer that contract to any nominee without consent.
So in the case of the Mariners neither of those had occurred. (although there might be an argument about payment)
Also the contract is signed by the club. Not the clubs owner or the entity.

So in the case of our owner situation changing, the contract is still valid with the FFA & may be transferred to whom ever they choose.

I get the feeling some people are being used to spread false information. In any case it's unusual for a story like this to not have come out in the media yet.

I think this is where the previously quoted clause was intended to cover & was not relative to our situation (that we know of).

As for who signs it is important. While the club always exists who owns that club is the most important aspect for liabilities & incomes as well.

Company A owned CCM & transfered the FFA licence to Company B. While CCM has remained the whole time the owner has changed. From transfer date Company A is no longer liable for anything related to CCM.

Michael is assumed to be arguing his contract is with Company A who no longer hold an A league licence & therefore have no enforceable contract for him. He hasn't signed with Company B so feels he is free to leave. This would not work in the reverse & is therefore doubtful that he is correct.

If the FFA had removed the licence you would have heard about it a) in the media at the time b) as part of Michael's reason for not having a contract. So you can assume that it was a fairly standard transfer with FFA approval. It may have been a clean break to transfer the licence to a company owned wholly & solely by MC with no previous history to previous owners (not uncommon).

I also now believe the reason that CCM are quoting the 1st of Jan is that is the contracts inforceable date for Michael. Michael has made it clear that he does not intend to return & that the NIX were in discussions with CCM prior to the FFA release stuff up. I am assuming this was in the works prior to becoming public. CCM are unhappy with the behaviour of Michael & the NIX & are now digging there heals in as they should (personally believe this is down to the new CEO). However they have no legal right to request his return until the 1st Jan (Part of the VS deal).

All of this is based on my opinion I have no knowledge of the actual situation but trying to convey what may have occured. I have not spoken to any one to gain these opinions

 

[midfielder]

From the NZ Herald ..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11293282
Football: McGlinchey likely to play for Phoenix tomorrow

All Whites midfielder Michael McGlinchey may turn out for the Wellington Phoenix in a pre-season friendly tomorrow as the contractual dispute around him rumbles on.

The Central Coast Mariners and the Phoenix both believe they have the 27-year-old under contract in a messy situation that is likely to be settled by arbitration in the near future.

The Professional Footballers Australia organisation are involved, while Football Federation Australia are aware of the problem, although no clear resolution is in sight.

The Phoenix will meet Wellington club side Olympic in the capital tomorrow and Phoenix coach Ernie Merrick said McGlinchey could feature for the first time after he began training with them recently.

"I think he'll get some game-time tomorrow night," Merrick said. "We want to give most of the boys a run tomorrow night."

Asked if he could elaborate any further on the McGlinchey situation, Merrick said he was unable to.

"I've got no comment to make. We are just treating everyone the same and preparing a team to play two wonderful games against EPL sides and looking forward to that."

The Phoenix host English club sides West Ham and Newcastle United in New Zealand next week.

Meanwhile, Phoenix midfielder Albert Riera hopes to swap shirts with Italian great Andrea Pirlo after being named in the A-League All Stars team to meet Juventus in Sydney next month.

"He's one of my heroes," Riera said.

A year ago Riera was playing for Auckland City but was spotted by Merrick and given a chance at the Phoenix and the Spaniard was one of the club's most influential players last season before a serious groin injury disrupted his campaign.

Riera has recovered well from surgery and expected to be back at full fitness in the next few weeks.

 

[sydmariner]

From the NZ Herald ..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11293282
Football: McGlinchey likely to play for Phoenix tomorrow

All Whites midfielder Michael McGlinchey may turn out for the Wellington Phoenix in a pre-season friendly tomorrow

 

[pjennings]

So if he gets injured tomorrow does that mean our insurance covers him?

 

[disordinary]

So if he gets injured tomorrow does that mean our insurance covers him?

Considering he is a New Zealand citizen in New Zealand then I would imagine he would be covered by ACC which is a state owned organisation that provides universal accident cover.

Because the Phoenix play in the A-League but are based in New Zealand they are in the unenviable position of having to pay for insurance twice, once to ACC which is compulsory in NZ, and once to the A-League insurers. If this was an Australian team them I'm guessing his insurance would fall under the Phoenix as they are presumably paying him, but as above its a moot point if he is injured in New Zealand.

 

[Luke]

Been confirmed that he won't be playing.

(Long time lurker first time poster)

 

[Capt. Awesome]

Been confirmed that he won't be playing.

(Long time lurker first time poster)

Please give sources when making statements like "Been confirmed..."

Also won't be playing for who???

 

[disordinary]

On twitter.

https://twitter.com/WgtnPhoenixFC/status/488856101861875712