Poetry_In_Blue 1,043 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Made 4 appearances so far I believe for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Jim Spence will never learn, ugly ginger prick that he is!He looks like someone has set him on fire and put him out with a golf shoe.What's upset you about what Spence said on this occasion? He hasn't given an opinion, just stated a fact.If the tribunal treat us as a new club then it completely changes the award. He's right.I reckon we'll lose this one on a technicality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,622 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What's upset you about what Spence said on this occasion? He hasn't given an opinion, just stated a fact.If the tribunal treat us as a new club then it completely changes the award. He's right.I reckon we'll lose this one on a technicality.Lol. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Lol.?Do you think we'll win?I'm no expert on contract law, but I don't see how we can win this. Being the same club, which we are, and being the same company, which we're not, are different things.Legally, I reckon United will win on a technicality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluebells 6,898 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 What's upset you about what Spence said on this occasion? He hasn't given an opinion, just stated a fact.If the tribunal treat us as a new club then it completely changes the award. He's right.I reckon we'll lose this one on a technicality.Eh?Why would the tribunal take us a new club since we aren't?Odd.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Eh?Why would the tribunal take us a new club since we aren't?Odd....You're confusing club and company. United will have a strong legal case that we're not the same company. I'd be surprised if they lose.People are confusing two different issues here. United will probably win here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 You're confusing club and company. United will have a strong legal case that we're not the same company. I'd be surprised if they lose.People are confusing two different issues here. United will probably win here.I see your point about different companies, I'm not sure on the details of TUPE as I believe the players previous contract just moves to the new company so there is a contract lineage there.However why you keep repeating you think they'll win I don't know. Why would DU increase their offer if they are so certain of victory? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I see your point about different companies, I'm not sure on the details of TUPE as I believe the players previous contract just moves to the new company so there is a contract lineage there.However why you keep repeating you think they'll win I don't know. Why would DU increase their offer if they are so certain of victory?Have United not denied the story today that they had increased their offer?We know not all contracts carried on to the new company, some players just walked away.I don't see how youth contracts would be different. All United have to do is to ask for copies of the contracts this company held for the player. Any contracts pre-liquidation would be irrelevant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Have United not denied the story today that they had increased their offer?We know not all contracts carried on to the new company, some players just walked away.I don't see how youth contracts would be different. All United have to do is to ask for copies of the contracts this company held for the player. Any contracts pre-liquidation would be irrelevant.Didn't know they denied their increased offer.You know the details of TUPE then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBluebells 6,898 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 You're confusing club and company. United will have a strong legal case that we're not the same company. I'd be surprised if they lose.People are confusing two different issues here. United will probably win here.Im not confusing anything, you said "If the tribunal treat us as a new club". Im asking why they would treat us as a new club, since we aren't? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Arguing over this is futile. Someone bump it in 18-24 months.I wont be surprised if he's playing for a Scottish Championship club by then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Im not confusing anything, you said "If the tribunal treat us as a new club". Im asking why they would treat us as a new club, since we aren't?Even I confused the new club/company issue. It's easily done and many of us on this thread have done it.It's a very important distinction. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Didn't know they denied their increased offer.You know the details of TUPE then?"Should the Players wish to transfer across to the newco, TUPE ensures that they do so on their existing contractual terms. Equally TUPE affords every employee the statutory right to object to the transfer; employers cannot select which parts of TUPE they wish to apply."I think 'transfer' is going to be the word that wins it for United. They have a clear case that the player was employed/registered by a different company. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry handsome 629 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 Telfer would have been a footballing employee as opposed to a holding company employee I would imagine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear_in_Belgium 34 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 I agree that we shouldn't necessarily expect an answer for a while. These things can take forever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 It is the same economic entity and the player has retained his length of service as dictated by the TUPE laws. Would be surprised if we don't win this one. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlBear. 8,499 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 It is the same economic entity and the player has retained his length of service as dictated by the TUPE laws. Would be surprised if we don't win this one.That was my thinking. I was thinking about mentioning you as you have a better understanding of this most. But I don't think any logical, or legal, argument would sway BiB opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 That was my thinking. I was thinking about mentioning you as you have a better understanding of this most. But I don't think any logical, or legal, argument would sway BiB opinion.To be honest, tupe arguments are all a bit of a stab in the dark. Most confusing and hard to predict regs ever written!Still think we will win, but wouldn't be surprised if it went the other way.Just have to wait and see. Will be settled before any decision is made IMO. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
legalbeagle 3,734 Posted November 14, 2014 Share Posted November 14, 2014 As others have said, it is a complex area. The current employing entity is not responsible for spending time, resource and money on his development, so I personally think we have a tough argument.Always bear in mind that TUPE protects the employee's rights, not the employer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.