The application of TUPE is a complex area of law at the best of times and particularly so when considering the asset purchase of an insolvent company. I'm a solicitor who specialises in Employment law but I wouldn't say with any degree of confidence that the explanation I am about to give is entirely correct. Particularly so after a couple of ciders on a Friday, without any legal research or access to legal resources and nobody paying me to do that research!

The starting point is that TUPE applies to what is known as a relevant transfer. That means:

"A transfer of a business, undertaking or part of a business or undertaking where there is a transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity (a "business transfer") (regulation 3(1)(a), TUPE)."

In this instance I do not think that either TC or PR would struggle to satisfy an Employment Tribunal that TUPE would be applicable if the deal completes. While the new company would be a different legal entity to the old one the economic entity and identity would still be Plymouth Argyle Football Club. The new company would be a successor company for the purposes of TUPE.

Normally that would trigger what is known as the automatic transfer principle which means those two employees would automatically be moved to the new company on the exact same terms and conditions:

"This principle applies to all employees who were employed in the grouping immediately before the transfer, or who would have been so employed if they had not been dismissed because of the transfer or a reason connected with it which is not an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce (regulation 4(3), TUPE)."

In this instance they have both already been dismissed and so will not transfer. It is an automatically Unfair Dismissal to dismiss someone so as to avoid them being transferred to the buyer. It seems to me that PR at least could try and run an argument which goes that he was dismissed because that would help facilitate the deal (particularly so because Brent was told in advance - was he just told or did he require?) rather than for the reasons actually given. It is less likely that TC could run that argument and rather more likely in his instance that what is known as an ETO reason might apply. The question whether dismissals by an insolvency practitioner are connected with the transfer and for an ETO reason has been debated a lot. More recent cases have tended to conclude that pre-transfer dismissals in insolvency situations where a sale is envisaged are connected with the transfer.

However the real crux of this matter is that it is not only existing employees who transfer but also "any acts or omissions of the transferor before the transfer are treated as having been done by the transferee (regulation 4(2), TUPE)."

Put simply if the sellers owed them money then the buyers would normally owe them money. This talk of how they want 'more' or that everyone else will agree so why won't they is simply a smokescreen. Those people who have transferred over are not in the same position. The others who were sacked / made redundant are. If they are owed money then Jame Brent would legally owe them that money and he knows it and they know it. I would be surprised if Chris Webb did not know it as well. No wonder TC is content to arbitrate on this and JB is not.

Furthermore I have seen it suggested that because PR and TC won't back down (why should they if they have been advised they are being stitched up?) then JB can't either because all of a sudden it would cost him £100,000+ as he would have to pay that to the rest of the '15' what they are entitled to. With respect that seems like complete bull - each former employee can negotiate their own settlement and (without being privy to the details of exactly what is proposed) I am scratching my head as to what kind of deal would require them to all sign up to the same terms.

I have also seen a lot of talk of how TC's dispute is 'only' 6k and he can afford it but why should he have to? JB could afford to pay it even more easily and, from what we know, it is more likely than not that he actually will owe it if he completes. This is about a business man trying to buy a business at the lowest possible price even if that is below what he ought to be legally paying for it. That doesn't make him a sinner by any means but it hardly makes him a saint either.

The application of TUPE is a complex area of law at the best of times and particularly so when considering the asset purchase of an insolvent company. I'm a solicitor who specialises in Employment law but I wouldn't say with any degree of confidence that the explanation I am about to give is entirely correct. Particularly so after a couple of ciders on a Friday, without any legal research or access to legal resources and nobody paying me to do that research!

The starting point is that TUPE applies to what is known as a relevant transfer. That means:

"A transfer of a business, undertaking or part of a business or undertaking where there is a transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity (a "business transfer") (regulation 3(1)(a), TUPE)."

In this instance I do not think that either TC or PR would struggle to satisfy an Employment Tribunal that TUPE would be applicable if the deal completes. While the new company would be a different legal entity to the old one the economic entity and identity would still be Plymouth Argyle Football Club. The new company would be a successor company for the purposes of TUPE.

Normally that would trigger what is known as the automatic transfer principle which means those two employees would automatically be moved to the new company on the exact same terms and conditions:

"This principle applies to all employees who were employed in the grouping immediately before the transfer, or who would have been so employed if they had not been dismissed because of the transfer or a reason connected with it which is not an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce (regulation 4(3), TUPE)."

In this instance they have both already been dismissed and so will not transfer. It is an automatically Unfair Dismissal to dismiss someone so as to avoid them being transferred to the buyer. It seems to me that PR at least could try and run an argument which goes that he was dismissed because that would help facilitate the deal (particularly so because Brent was told in advance - was he just told or did he require?) rather than for the reasons actually given. It is less likely that TC could run that argument and rather more likely in his instance that what is known as an ETO reason might apply. The question whether dismissals by an insolvency practitioner are connected with the transfer and for an ETO reason has been debated a lot. More recent cases have tended to conclude that pre-transfer dismissals in insolvency situations where a sale is envisaged are connected with the transfer.

However the real crux of this matter is that it is not only existing employees who transfer but also "any acts or omissions of the transferor before the transfer are treated as having been done by the transferee (regulation 4(2), TUPE)."

Put simply if the sellers owed them money then the buyers would normally owe them money. This talk of how they want 'more' or that everyone else will agree so why won't they is simply a smokescreen. Those people who have transferred over are not in the same position. The others who were sacked / made redundant are. If they are owed money then Jame Brent would legally owe them that money and he knows it and they know it. I would be surprised if Chris Webb did not know it as well. No wonder TC is content to arbitrate on this and JB is not.

Furthermore I have seen it suggested that because PR and TC won't back down (why should they if they have been advised they are being stitched up?) then JB can't either because all of a sudden it would cost him £100,000+ as he would have to pay that to the rest of the '15' what they are entitled to. With respect that seems like complete bull - each former employee can negotiate their own settlement and (without being privy to the details of exactly what is proposed) I am scratching my head as to what kind of deal would require them to all sign up to the same terms.

I have also seen a lot of talk of how TC's dispute is 'only' 6k and he can afford it but why should he have to? JB could afford to pay it even more easily and, from what we know, it is more likely than not that he actually will owe it if he completes. This is about a business man trying to buy a business at the lowest possible price even if that is below what he ought to be legally paying for it. That doesn't make him a sinner by any means but it hardly makes him a saint either.

Exactly. We are all grateful to Brent but the Trust seem to be trying to paint him as Mother Theresa. Wonder how long the honeymoon will last. He is playing hardball but TC and PR are quite within their rights not to be bullied. We all know how unfairly PR was treated. James give them a decent deal. I am sure they don't want to hold the club to ransom.

I am not an expert in these matters and I am not taking sides but at the end of the day we could, in theory, have:

''PAFC in liquidation because 2 out of 200 would not sign''

A general interest question for those in the know ''is there any legal avenues that JB could take to complete the takeover even if 2 won't sign ??''

Goodnight

'PAFC in liquidation because 2 out of 300 would not sign''

Edited for you.

So TC brings in the New World, heads off to Rushden and plays a part in their liquidation, now holds the very future of the club to ransom for peanuts.

Am I missing something - why is he respected by so many on here? What "fan" would act in this way, putting himself above the very existence of the club?

Reid has been treated like crap, but is a rich man, will get all his money over the next few years, and it's strange that he's gone from paying the heating bill to this. I'm sure he'll see sense.

This is all very saddening, especially with the presentation Reid was due to receive.

Smells like a case of professional negligence by the administrator's legal advisors, or have I got this wrong with regard to Tony Campbell? Cannot an interested party make a claim somehow.

Now PR's position is another matter. The problem is that he is being probably advised by his own lawyer, who is not likely to advise him to concede, as that lawyer has no emotional attachment to the critical issue of PAFC's continuity.[/quote]


and why should he? can't expect a solicitor to say: 'let it go Reidy or you might upset Quintrell Grenn can you?? (can you??) reidy made enough sacrifices in his time here. not his fault if those running the club continue to make elementary mistakes or skip detail.

just goes to show you are better off with a legal adviser who gives you advice rather than one who suggests you don't answer questions truthfully!!

Who said I was upset. I was only stating the obvious. The lawyer would be considered incompetent if he did not recommend a stance at this stage.

no i didn't say that you are upset, i was making the same point as yourself: Reid's lawyer is being professional. Take my cool calm informed advice, don't worry about the effect on others, any pressure or perceived consequences. So i just used you as an example of one of the 'distractions' that a good solicitor would advise not to take into consideration. (hence 'might upset' - future tense).

i agrre with you but my point is that Argyle's survival is not a 'critical issue' to a good solicitor (to be honest it shouldn't be even if that solicitor supports Argyle!!)

the problem is too many unprofessional accountants and solicitors on one side running up against 'better' solicitors representing 'injured parties'.

nothing me and you can really do QG except sit it out!!

COYG!!

The application of TUPE is a complex area of law at the best of times and particularly so when considering the asset purchase of an insolvent company. I'm a solicitor who specialises in Employment law but I wouldn't say with any degree of confidence that the explanation I am about to give is entirely correct. Particularly so after a couple of ciders on a Friday, without any legal research or access to legal resources and nobody paying me to do that research!

The starting point is that TUPE applies to what is known as a relevant transfer. That means:

"A transfer of a business, undertaking or part of a business or undertaking where there is a transfer of an economic entity that retains its identity (a "business transfer") (regulation 3(1)(a), TUPE)."

In this instance I do not think that either TC or PR would struggle to satisfy an Employment Tribunal that TUPE would be applicable if the deal completes. While the new company would be a different legal entity to the old one the economic entity and identity would still be Plymouth Argyle Football Club. The new company would be a successor company for the purposes of TUPE.

Normally that would trigger what is known as the automatic transfer principle which means those two employees would automatically be moved to the new company on the exact same terms and conditions:

"This principle applies to all employees who were employed in the grouping immediately before the transfer, or who would have been so employed if they had not been dismissed because of the transfer or a reason connected with it which is not an ETO reason entailing changes in the workforce (regulation 4(3), TUPE)."

In this instance they have both already been dismissed and so will not transfer. It is an automatically Unfair Dismissal to dismiss someone so as to avoid them being transferred to the buyer. It seems to me that PR at least could try and run an argument which goes that he was dismissed because that would help facilitate the deal (particularly so because Brent was told in advance - was he just told or did he require?) rather than for the reasons actually given. It is less likely that TC could run that argument and rather more likely in his instance that what is known as an ETO reason might apply. The question whether dismissals by an insolvency practitioner are connected with the transfer and for an ETO reason has been debated a lot. More recent cases have tended to conclude that pre-transfer dismissals in insolvency situations where a sale is envisaged are connected with the transfer.

However the real crux of this matter is that it is not only existing employees who transfer but also "any acts or omissions of the transferor before the transfer are treated as having been done by the transferee (regulation 4(2), TUPE)."

Put simply if the sellers owed them money then the buyers would normally owe them money. This talk of how they want 'more' or that everyone else will agree so why won't they is simply a smokescreen. Those people who have transferred over are not in the same position. The others who were sacked / made redundant are. If they are owed money then Jame Brent would legally owe them that money and he knows it and they know it. I would be surprised if Chris Webb did not know it as well. No wonder TC is content to arbitrate on this and JB is not.

Furthermore I have seen it suggested that because PR and TC won't back down (why should they if they have been advised they are being stitched up?) then JB can't either because all of a sudden it would cost him £100,000+ as he would have to pay that to the rest of the '15' what they are entitled to. With respect that seems like complete bull - each former employee can negotiate their own settlement and (without being privy to the details of exactly what is proposed) I am scratching my head as to what kind of deal would require them to all sign up to the same terms.

I have also seen a lot of talk of how TC's dispute is 'only' 6k and he can afford it but why should he have to? JB could afford to pay it even more easily and, from what we know, it is more likely than not that he actually will owe it if he completes. This is about a business man trying to buy a business at the lowest possible price even if that is below what he ought to be legally paying for it. That doesn't make him a sinner by any means but it hardly makes him a saint either.

If the dispute relates to payment for the period of notice after being made redundant it's hard to believe that the cost for 15, I imagine, mainly low paid employees would come anywhere near £100k (I would guess it would be nearer £20k) and as you say they have accepted the terms of their individual settlements, anyway. Although I would say that if under tupe they are entitled to this money, as it would seem they are, they should be paid.

We are very luck to benefit from contributions from some Argyle fans done good like Phil Sayer and i enjoyed reading his post.

Doesn't change my view of JB though, some will say he is putting his financial interests first and of course he is however the best interests of Argyle now go hand in hand with that.

JB doesn't need advice from me but if he wanted it i would say you carry on my son.

Only Peter Reid to go

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=59592

[Mark Pedlar]

Wonder if Reid would sign under the condition that Ridsdale left?

His is going to be the sticky one. How much was he on & how much of his contract remained....

Wonder if Reid would sign under the condition that Ridsdale left?

Fair's fair. Results business and all that. And it's not as if Ridsdale found a buyer or put in any cash.

IF, as rumoured, he didn't receive any wages at all,then he probably thinks he should get what he is owed.

I've been wondering for a while if that may not be what the sticking point it. His wages from July-October 2010, before the rest of the squad took defferals.