Question Anyone know their contract law?

[Ricky Otto]

I'm very sceptical when I get told "inside information" as 90% of the time its not true. In this case I heard it from someone I know has connections with the club so I think it is worthy of posting here. It seems that several of the players agents may be seeking legal advice as they believe the late payments of wages on numerous occassions amounts to breach of contract, meaning the players can move on without a fee. Speaking to the guy I know we both believe that anything coming of this is highly unlikely, although I don't know the ins and outs of contract law we haven't heard anything about this in higher profile cases i.e Portsmouth. What it does highlight is that there are obviously a good few players who want away from Roots Hall.

Anybody on here have a basic knowledge of contract law?

 

[Reg Martin]

I'm very sceptical when I get told "inside information" as 90% of the time its not true. In this case I heard it from someone I know has connections with the club so I think it is worthy of posting here. It seems that several of the players agents may be seeking legal advice as they believe the late payments of wages on numerous occassions amounts to breach of contract, meaning the players can move on without a fee. Speaking to the guy I know we both believe that anything coming of this is highly unlikely, although I don't know the ins and outs of contract law we haven't heard anything about this in higher profile cases i.e Portsmouth. What it does highlight is that there are obviously a good few players who want away from Roots Hall.

Anybody on here have a basic knowledge of contract law?

I seem to remember that the carbolic smoke ball case is very important in contract law.

 

[Shrimperforlife]

I am led to believe it is simple, if its not in the written contract , its null and void...have a look at your own , does it mention it??

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

A very brief lawyer's answer? It's by no means clear cut.

;)

OK, so that's what all lawyers say. The slightly longer analysis:

* The club may have been in repudiatory breach of the players' employment contracts when it failed to pay them on time. On a very simplistic level, the essence of any contract of employment is that I work for you, and you pay me. If you don't pay me, that is a fundamental breach of contract on your part.

* A key essence of repudiation is that the "victim" then has a choice: either to accept the repudiation and thereby terminate the contract; or to affirm the contract (thereby "rejecting" the opportunity to repudiate) and sue for damages.

* In this situation, the "pure contract" analysis may be that by staying on at the club, the players affirmed their contracts; they therefore lost the opportunity to repudiate and must therefore sue for damages. Their damages may be lost interest on any savings they have, or the cost of any penalties they had to pay (e.g. on mortgage / credit card payments).

* However, that is a "pure contract" analysis. Footballers' employment contracts will be subject to different rules concerning employment law, and there may even be some precedent concerning the peculiarities of footballers' contracts. I'm not an expert on either, so couldn't begin to advise on the players' rights.

* * *

From a pure contractual analysis - and subject, of course, to any overriding employment / football law issues - by staying on at the club, continuing to play, and then accepting their wages (albeit late), it is likelier than not that the players will be found to have affirmed, and therefore to have lost the right to repudiate, their contracts. They therefore simply have a right to claim for damages (provided they can establish that the club is in repudiatory breach - which, if the stories about non-payment of wages are to be believed, it may be). If the players then walked away from their contracts, it is they - rather than the club - who would be in repudiatory breach. The club could accept that repudiation - especially so in the close season - and then sue them for damages. The players ought to think long and hard before taking such a course of action.

As a footnote - the fact that the club paid the players late further muddies the water. Whether the club has remedied the repudiatory breach - or whether time is of the essence in respect of payment (and thus the late payment does not cure the earlier repudiatory breach) - is by no means clear. That said, the fact of the players staying on and then accepting those wages would point strongly towards affirmation.

Matt

 

[Pubey]

A very brief lawyer's answer? It's by no means clear cut.

;)

OK, so that's what all lawyers say. The slightly longer analysis:

* The club may have been in repudiatory breach of the players' employment contracts when it failed to pay them on time. On a very simplistic level, the essence of any contract of employment is that I work for you, and you pay me. If you don't pay me, that is a fundamental breach of contract on your part.

* A key essence of repudiation is that the "victim" then has a choice: either to accept the repudiation and thereby terminate the contract; or affirm the contract (thereby "rejecting" the opportunity to repudiate) and sue for damages.

* In this situation, the "pure contract" analysis may be that by staying on at the club, the players affirmed their contracts; they therefore lost the opportunity to repudiate and must therefore sue for damages. Their damages may be lost interest on any savings they have, or the cost of any penalties they had to pay (e.g. on mortgage / credit card payments).

* However, that is a "pure contract" analysis. Footballers' employment contracts will be subject to different rules concerning employment law, and there may even be some precedent concerning the peculiarities of footballers' contracts. I'm not an expert on either, so couldn't begin to advise on the players' rights.

* * *

From a pure contractual analysis - and subject, of course, to any overriding employment / football law issues - by staying on at the club, continuing to play, and then accepting their wages (albeit late), it is likelier than not that the players will be found to have affirmed, and therefore to have lost the right to repudiate, their contracts. They therefore simply have a right to claim for damages (provided they can establish that the club is in repudiatory breach - which, if the stories about non-payment of wages are to be believed, it may be). If the players then walked away from their contracts, it is they - rather than the club - who would be in repudiatory breach. The club could accept that repudiation - especially so in the close season - and then sue them for damages. The players ought to think long and hard before taking such a course of action.

Matt

so basically because they then carried on playing and accepting wages, they probably don't have a leg to stand on?

 

[EastStandBlue]

Matt, could they claim compensation for any penalty payments or charges that could have occured because of the late payment of wages?

 

[Ricky Otto]

A very brief lawyer's answer? It's by no means clear cut.

;)

OK, so that's what all lawyers say. The slightly longer analysis:

* The club may have been in repudiatory breach of the players' employment contracts when it failed to pay them on time. On a very simplistic level, the essence of any contract of employment is that I work for you, and you pay me. If you don't pay me, that is a fundamental breach of contract on your part.

* A key essence of repudiation is that the "victim" then has a choice: either to accept the repudiation and thereby terminate the contract; or to affirm the contract (thereby "rejecting" the opportunity to repudiate) and sue for damages.

* In this situation, the "pure contract" analysis may be that by staying on at the club, the players affirmed their contracts; they therefore lost the opportunity to repudiate and must therefore sue for damages. Their damages may be lost interest on any savings they have, or the cost of any penalties they had to pay (e.g. on mortgage / credit card payments).

* However, that is a "pure contract" analysis. Footballers' employment contracts will be subject to different rules concerning employment law, and there may even be some precedent concerning the peculiarities of footballers' contracts. I'm not an expert on either, so couldn't begin to advise on the players' rights.

* * *

From a pure contractual analysis - and subject, of course, to any overriding employment / football law issues - by staying on at the club, continuing to play, and then accepting their wages (albeit late), it is likelier than not that the players will be found to have affirmed, and therefore to have lost the right to repudiate, their contracts. They therefore simply have a right to claim for damages (provided they can establish that the club is in repudiatory breach - which, if the stories about non-payment of wages are to be believed, it may be). If the players then walked away from their contracts, it is they - rather than the club - who would be in repudiatory breach. The club could accept that repudiation - especially so in the close season - and then sue them for damages. The players ought to think long and hard before taking such a course of action.

As a footnote - the fact that the club paid the players late further muddies the water. Whether the club has remedied the repudiatory breach - or whether time is of the essence in respect of payment (and thus the late payment does not cure the earlier repudiatory breach) - is by no means clear. That said, the fact of the players staying on and then accepting those wages would point strongly towards affirmation.

Matt

Cheers Matt, very helpful but like most things in the law not clear cut

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

I am led to believe it is simple, if its not in the written contract , its null and void...have a look at your own , does it mention it??

Erm, nope.

Just because something isn't written, doesn't mean it isn't a term of your contract. Contracts may be oral; written contracts also include implied terms (implied by statute, or by the common law).

Matt

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

so basically because they then carried on playing and accepting wages, they probably don't have a leg to stand on?

As a matter of pure contract law, probably; however, my thoughts above are subject to the overriding issues of employment law and relevant footballing precedent, and I cannot opine on either of those issues.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Matt, could they claim compensation for any penalty payments or charges that could have occured because of the late payment of wages?

On the limited information we have seen so far about payment of wages, it's a definite possibility. Much would turn on their specific contracts of employment; and you would also need to look at causation and remoteness - has the non-payment of the wages actually caused the various losses; and in any event, how foreseeable were those losses?

On their face, credit card and mortgage penalty payments might be reasonably foreseeable losses following on from non-payment of wages. Whether they were caused by the non-payment might need a bit more looking into - for instance, how much debt was the player in anyway? Did the non-payment of the wages tip them over the edge, or were they already deeply in the red - with the result that the non-payment actually made no difference? That latter point may be particularly relevant.

Notwithstanding that, in Ron's shoes, faced with legitimate requests for reimbursement of penalty payments caused by the club's non-payment of wages, he should think long and hard before turning them down. Not only might he have caused those losses, but he could in fact generate considerably more goodwill than he has lost by voluntarily repaying them. I can't imagine the sums in question are that great after all - it would be a very cheap way to buy the players' goodwill. Players who may have previously been wavering might, in fact, see it as a sign of genuine change of heart and behaviour in Ron - and might therefore repay that by giving a bit of extra on the training ground. They might not, of course, but it's a possibility.

On the flip side, telling the players to get knotted is - I'd have thought - a sure-fire way to make sure they only go through the motions in training, and to keep their eyes firmly fixed on the exit door.

Matt

 

[Sherif H]

I seem to remember that the carbolic smoke ball case is very important in contract law.

lol...the good old 'Carbolic Smoke' case - I think this was associated with breach of contract.....the one that was drummed into me was 'Murphy v Brentwood DC' (professional negligence I think) and a couple of others regarding duty of care....case references escape me!

The joys of construction contract law!

 

[EastStandBlue]

On the limited information we have seen so far about payment of wages, it's a definite possibility. Much would turn on their specific contracts of employment; and you would also need to look at causation and remoteness - has the non-payment of the wages actually caused the various losses; and in any event, how foreseeable were those losses?

On their face, credit card and mortgage penalty payments might be reasonably foreseeable losses following on from non-payment of wages. Whether they were caused by the non-payment might need a bit more looking into - for instance, how much debt was the player in anyway? Did the non-payment of the wages tip them over the edge, or were they already deeply in the red - with the result that the non-payment actually made no difference? That latter point may be particularly relevant.

Notwithstanding that, in Ron's shoes, faced with legitimate requests for reimbursement of penalty payments caused by the club's non-payment of wages, he should think long and hard before turning them down. Not only might he have caused those losses, but he could in fact generate considerably more goodwill than he has lost by voluntarily repaying them. I can't imagine the sums in question are that great after all - it would be a very cheap way to buy the players' goodwill. Players who may have previously been wavering might, in fact, see it as a sign of genuine change of heart and behaviour in Ron - and might therefore repay that by giving a bit of extra on the training ground. They might not, of course, but it's a possibility.

On the flip side, telling the players to get knotted is - I'd have thought - a sure-fire way to make sure they only go through the motions in training, and to keep their eyes firmly fixed on the exit door.

Matt

Cheers Matt... In all fairness it's not something I've heard to be on the cards, just a situation I've seen explored in the past.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

The joys of construction contract law!

Ah, Murphy v. Brentwood, happy days. As for those joys... well, it keeps me off the streets, Sherif!

:)

(Construction litigation is what I do, incidentally - so look no further if you ever get into a spot of bother!)

 

[Razam]

From a pure contractual analysis - and subject, of course, to any overriding employment / football law issues - by staying on at the club, continuing to play, and then accepting their wages (albeit late), it is likelier than not that the players will be found to have affirmed, and therefore to have lost the right to repudiate, their contracts.

THNX matt.

I know you mentioned you can't comment on any overriding football law issues & your analysis is purely on contract law in general. But do you know if the issue of the transfer window has an affect? ie. the late payments were, IIRC, after the January transfer window closed this year - and so even if the players did leave they would not have been able to get employment (join another club) until the season ended. So, staying at the club was their only option & continuing to play was essential to being able to move to a new club in the summer?

Or have I got it completly wrong?

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

THNX matt.

I know you mentioned you can't comment on any overriding football law issues & your analysis is purely on contract law in general. But do you know if the issue of the transfer window has an affect? ie. the late payments were, IIRC, after the January transfer window closed this year - and so even if the players did leave they would not have been able to get employment (join another club) until the season ended. So, staying at the club was their only option & continuing to play was essential to being able to move to a new club in the summer?

Or have I got it completly wrong?

If they were allowed to leave, due to the club breaking their contract, they would not be under contract, ergo they would, as a free agent been able to sign for any club that wanted them. The transfer window only applies to transfers.

 

[Ricky Otto]

THNX matt.

I know you mentioned you can't comment on any overriding football law issues & your analysis is purely on contract law in general. But do you know if the issue of the transfer window has an affect? ie. the late payments were, IIRC, after the January transfer window closed this year - and so even if the players did leave they would not have been able to get employment (join another club) until the season ended. So, staying at the club was their only option & continuing to play was essential to being able to move to a new club in the summer?

Or have I got it completly wrong?

I think the window only applies to contracted players, a free agent can sign for a club outside of the transfer window and if the contract was nullified then the player would be a free agent. I'm pretty sure thats the case.

 

[EastStandBlue]

I think the window only applies to contracted players, a free agent can sign for a club outside of the transfer window and if the contract was nullified then the player would be a free agent. I'm pretty sure thats the case.

A club can only register a player with the League as long as the player left his previous club during or before the most recent transfer window.

 

[Razam]

A club can only register a player with the League as long as the player left his previous club during or before the most recent transfer window.

yup that was my understanding as well. While trying to get it confirmed, I stumbled across the FAs rules & regulations:

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/~/media/...27.ashx/Rules_of_the_association_pg91-127.pdf

I saw this bit under Rules Relating to Players: Contract of Employment:

(iv) All claims by Players against Clubs for wages or expenses must be submitted to The Association within three months of the termination of the agreement to which they refer, unless special grounds are shown for the delay.​

 

[number11]

I know it was a while ago now so rules are likely to have been changed / tightened, but when Fry was manager, weren't all the highly regarded members of the Barnet team (many of whom joined us) all allowed to leave without fee due to non payment of wages....

 

[shrimperian]

In all honesty, without knowing what is contained within the terms of the contract, we cannot be sure whether any breach has taken place or not. It may well depend on whether the salary is quoted as being paid on a specific day. Also, if the palyers want to claim breach, they cannot then claim any benefit from the contract at a later stage. IE. if the players are deemed to be out of contract at the point of non payment, then they cannot receive a win bonus for the stockport game for instance as the contract would be void. In any case, I believe that the contract is likely to have caveats that address this issue, as a players contract is not open ended but for a fixed term. I have dealt with some premiership contracts when dealing with agents disputes and they are all very tight when it comes to payments....even going as far as to say that the club holds the right to withhold payment for certain circumstances. the fact that the players have been paid to date, may make the whole point moot in any case.