Question Anyone know their contract law?

[Matt the Shrimp]

Razam - the point about the transfer window issue is an interesting complication - and is likely to be without precedent, given how relatively new the transfer windows are.

However, registration of players is a much older issue - and that, essentially, is the issue here. You'd need to look into how the FA and perhaps also the courts handled registration disputes between players and clubs who, in the past, refused to release that player's registration.

The argument is likely to be, however, that the players could have resigned even during a closed window, declared themselves free agents, and then tried to register with a new club. If SUFC prevented the registration, that may be a further breach triggering further losses (wages at new club, win bonuses at new club etc.).

Don't get me wrong - I don't blame any players for not accepting the repudiation. It would be a phenomenally ballsy thing to do; and if the player couldn't prove the club was in repudiatory breach, then the result would be that the player himself would be in repudiatory breach and thus liable to the club in damages.

Perhaps in these troubled financial times this is something that the PFA should be looking into, to ensure that these situations are adequately catered for in players' contracts in future. Back to the present, though... I'm not sure the picture is any clearer really, is it?

Matt

 

[A Century United]

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

Certainly seemed not from some of the performances towards the end.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Can't be bothered to read all MtS's essay, but I seem to recall that it's if they haven't been paid for two months they are eligible to leave on a free under football league rules.

However I think by subsequently accepting late payment of wages they've probably waived the breach and affirmed their contracts.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Could we counter these breach of contract actions by invoking the trades description act?

 

[Ricky Otto]

Could we counter these breach of contract actions by invoking the trades description act?

That is 1st class ha ha

 

[Winkle]

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

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh(lol)

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Can't be bothered to read all MtS's essay

It's not that long by a lawyer's standards.

by subsequently accepting late payment of wages they've probably waived the breach and affirmed their contracts.

Tsk tsk. Affirmation does not waive the breach; it merely acts as a waiver of the right to repudiate. The breach, and the right to sue for damages thereon, still stands.

 

[Beefy]

Tsk tsk. Affirmation does not waive the breach; it merely acts as a waiver of the right to repudiate. The breach, and the right to sue for damages thereon, still stands.

Yeah but it's not a legal issue, really. I mean yes technically a player who isn't getting paid could get the contract nullified but the Club would still hold the registration so it wouldn't be in their interests to do so.

This is one of many cases where football has put rules in place which put themselves above the law of the land. As Yorkshire Blue said, the League have a rule in place which allows a player a free transfer if they haven't been paid for a certain amount of time but I'd imagine that the subsequent acceptance of wages would mean that the players wouldn't be free to take up that option now unless they are willing to make a Bosman-esque legal challenge.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Yeah but it's not a legal issue, really.

...which is why I said in my initial advice that my musings on contract law were subject to overarching issues of employment law and the practice and precedent of FA rules.

;)