|
|
Post by dandayr on Aug 26, 2021 17:45:57 GMT
Dont want to take the Plymouth thread down a contracts rathole so thought would create a new thread to raise a point and comparison on it.
I get the impression in the comments in the Plymouth thread there is a general feeling of player had contract with Raiders but they have gone so no relevence to a contract that Patriots are now in the same city and same league.
I get and agree that if we are talking about I had a 2yr contract with smith sportshop and they walkaway and a totally different person talks to the landlord, takes over the unit and opens jones sportshop - then it is still tough for me and my contract is still worthless as jones tells me they dont have a shop anymore so no job to emply me for.
However other sports leagues dont take that approach.
A football team in scottish lge hits issues and administration- if their licence to play in the league is passed/approved by the lge to go from mr smith to mr jones, then one thing mr jones has to do is honour all football debts as part of the exit from administration. (yes it is a tough rule though for those the club has debts but are non football debts and they dont need to be honoured)
So instead of just pointing out Raiders and Patriots are different owners - is there not a genuine question about how a franchise (a licence to play in a lge) can be taken off one owner and passed to a new owner and sport related debts remain with the original owner and dont move with the franchise.
I genuinely dont know - which is the more common scenario in other sports or even just in basketball lgs in other european countries??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2021 18:01:16 GMT
I dont think it's the same, if man u go bust you wouldn't expect man City to pay their players. If it was raiders being sold and rebranded then I'd 100% agree but it's not, raiders still exist and the company still exists they just aren't participating in a league. Patriots are something different just in the same city.
|
|
|
|
Post by aligilfillan on Aug 26, 2021 18:03:32 GMT
Well the contract would be between Plymouth Raiders 1983 LTD and a player. find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10784897The Plymouth Raiders franchise was sold to a new business, who don’t inherit anything, but bought the franchise. So the directors of the old business should be honouring any contract, subject to break clauses etc. The player has no “recourse” against the patriots business |
|
|
|
Post by basketballjoe3 on Aug 26, 2021 20:39:32 GMT
Dont want to take the Plymouth thread down a contracts rathole so thought would create a new thread to raise a point and comparison on it. I get the impression in the comments in the Plymouth thread there is a general feeling of player had contract with Raiders but they have gone so no relevence to a contract that Patriots are now in the same city and same league. I get and agree that if we are talking about I had a 2yr contract with smith sportshop and they walkaway and a totally different person talks to the landlord, takes over the unit and opens jones sportshop - then it is still tough for me and my contract is still worthless as jones tells me they dont have a shop anymore so no job to emply me for. However other sports leagues dont take that approach. A football team in scottish lge hits issues and administration- if their licence to play in the league is passed/approved by the lge to go from mr smith to mr jones, then one thing mr jones has to do is honour all football debts as part of the exit from administration. (yes it is a tough rule though for those the club has debts but are non football debts and they dont need to be honoured) So instead of just pointing out Raiders and Patriots are different owners - is there not a genuine question about how a franchise (a licence to play in a lge) can be taken off one owner and passed to a new owner and sport related debts remain with the original owner and dont move with the franchise. I genuinely dont know - which is the more common scenario in other sports or even just in basketball lgs in other european countries?? In the example you've given about football above, the contracts are 'honoured' because they can continue, a club that enters administration and is bought out of it (quite often by a Company Voluntary Arrangement) means the company is substantially the same as before and can therefore continue, but with reduced financial burden. It can also continue to pay employees (players), who can also continue to turn up to work and provide service (play). This can happen one of two ways, a new owner buys the shares and therefore all liabilities of the company including payroll so employment can continue, or the trade and assets of the entity are purchased and (normally) the employees would be TUPE'd across to the new company payroll on substantially similar terms to those that they had, or they could be made redundant under a very stringent set of criteria. Raiders Ltd 83 (as far as I am aware) did not enter administration. A Scottish example similar to Raiders would be Rangers, where HMRC voted against the CVA meaning that Rangers could not continue as a going concern so the company had no choice but to enter liquidation and its right to compete in the SPL evaporated. A new company was formed and it had to start from the bottom tier and climb its way back to the top. As a result, every single contract issued by the old Rangers company was only capable of being fulfilled to the extent of remaining funds within that company, so all suppliers, shareholders and employees became creditors and could only receive what was due to them out of the very little amount left over, if anything at all. This is what appears to have happened to Raiders. Yes, Patriots do not start from the bottom by virtue of being able to obtain the BBL licence due to the single tier league structure, but they do start from scratch in exactly the same way as Rangers. So your point is more about company law and statute, rather than whether the BBL should operate in a different way - it can't, it can only operate within the parameters of employment law based on what happens to the companies that hold its licences. I agree with Mr Hamilton's view though, that there is a need for a player association, if nothing else it would clear up matters like the above. Sorry for the long post, I'm an accountant and clearly got a little excited by this cross over between my job and my hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by dandayr on Aug 26, 2021 20:53:22 GMT
I dont think it's the same, if man u go bust you wouldn't expect man City to pay their players. If it was raiders being sold and rebranded then I'd 100% agree but it's not, raiders still exist and the company still exists they just aren't participating in a league. Patriots are something different just in the same city. lol - if man u go bust of course man c dont pay their players because city dont need their licence to play in the lge, but if a different US sports group says we will take over from the glazers and keep the team in the same lge then you would expect them to pick up the liabilities. If they are not willing to do that - they can take the name Man U and start at the bottom tier. the great point though that here Raiders still exist - they just not got a team participating in a lge. Patriots are not replacing them - they are a brand new entry and as there is just one tier to BBL we dont even need to consider that aspect of the comparison. more think about it, it does seem clearer where any angst should be directed (the original employer who is still in business) and where not directed (the league or the new company that has joined it) |
|
|
|
Post by basketballjoe3 on Aug 26, 2021 21:18:39 GMT
Do Raiders still exist? They had negative retained earnings of over £400,000 in their 2020 accounts (even after the £240,000 injection by the Turks).
I'd suggest Raiders Ltd 83 is dead and gone, so Patriots are replacing them in the league having successfully bid for and obtained the BBL licence.
Without further investment, Raiders 83 Ltd is not a going concern (and can not be attested to as such by the directors) so will have been put into liquidation by now, unless someone did want to stump up £400k for a former basketball company with no BBL licence. I may be wrong, but I just can't see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Aug 26, 2021 22:33:40 GMT
Any reference to football is a moot point here because the withdrawal of the Raiders franchise is little to nothing to do with a continuing company and football teams arent franchised. Franchising rights/licesnes are a very niche area of law I care not to get into in the level of detail it probably warrants.
I guess the closest high profile example I can give is linked to rail networks.
Government (or the BBL) control the rail contracts and who they give them to (or franchise licenses for a spot in the league based on geographical area).
Southern rail, a company in its own right for example, have a contract to put their trains on south coast railway lines (Plymouth raiders had the license from the BBL to have a franchise in the league). Southern rail go bust because they arent making enough money and Virgin Railway come in and take the contract off the government (The Plymouth Patriots get the license off the league) and run their trains on the south coast lines.
Virgin rail may or may not have their own people working for them. They may recruit new people. Virgin Rail may headhunt people from the recently defunct Southern Rail (like Patriots did with Paul James), but do they have an obligation as a completely separate company to pay the now out of work Southern Rail workers? Obviously not.
I hope that clears it up, its a pretty shi*ty example but the best I could think of at this ungodly hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by dandayr on Aug 27, 2021 8:00:22 GMT
thanks basketballjoe3 and notoriousbigz for putting these replies in - both your examples are very helpful in understanding this more.
I especially like the rail comparison, taking this away from a sport comparison.
at the end of the day it is peoples livelihoods and whether is is retail, transport, financial, sport or (insert your own experience) that is providing the contract and income then we as employees are relying on our employer having the controls and monitors in place to ensure they can meet their obligations both today and ongoing - and when things go wrong (for whatever reason) and they cant then we look to unions/laws/governments/citizens advice/.... to support and guide and at same time try to prevent same happening again in future to others/us
life is messy!
|
|
|
|
Post by raiders92 on Aug 27, 2021 8:11:50 GMT
If we are comparing it to football, you would compare it to Afc wimbledon or Afc Bury. It is a totally separate company/team but everyone knows that it is in fact a continuation of the club that was there before. I still feel the raiders in its form is dead I don't see 2 bbl teams in Plymouth so therefore the raiders will either be liquidated and eventually the patriots will adapt the name or we see a new franchise under the raiders banner in a new market!
|
|
|
|
Post by basketballjoe3 on Aug 27, 2021 8:49:08 GMT
Any reference to football is a moot point here because the withdrawal of the Raiders franchise is little to nothing to do with a continuing company and football teams arent franchised. Franchising rights/licesnes are a very niche area of law I care not to get into in the level of detail it probably warrants. I guess the closest high profile example I can give is linked to rail networks. Government (or the BBL) control the rail contracts and who they give them to (or franchise licenses for a spot in the league based on geographical area). Southern rail, a company in its own right for example, have a contract to put their trains on south coast railway lines (Plymouth raiders had the license from the BBL to have a franchise in the league). Southern rail go bust because they arent making enough money and Virgin Railway come in and take the contract off the government (The Plymouth Patriots get the license off the league) and run their trains on the south coast lines. Virgin rail may or may not have their own people working for them. They may recruit new people. Virgin Rail may headhunt people from the recently defunct Southern Rail (like Patriots did with Paul James), but do they have an obligation as a completely separate company to pay the now out of work Southern Rail workers? Obviously not. I hope that clears it up, its a pretty shi*ty example but the best I could think of at this ungodly hour. Great example this! I was more thinking along the lines of the ending of the employment contract and why they can't be 'honoured' in two very distinct situations as opposed to what the franchise withdrawal might have triggered. I'd still suggest the withdrawal of the franchise by the BBL is directly linked to the inability of Raiders 83 to remain a going concern though, surely it's the trigger for withdrawal? |
|
|
|
Post by basketballjoe3 on Aug 27, 2021 8:57:56 GMT
If we are comparing it to football, you would compare it to Afc wimbledon or Afc Bury. It is a totally separate company/team but everyone knows that it is in fact a continuation of the club that was there before. I still feel the raiders in its form is dead I don't see 2 bbl teams in Plymouth so therefore the raiders will either be liquidated and eventually the patriots will adapt the name or we see a new franchise under the raiders banner in a new market! Another great example! I'd agree. Also worth noting we won't know for some time. When Raiders Ltd (Widdecombe era) sold its business to Raiders 83, it filed accounts on 28th February 2018 on a break up basis as it was insolvent (note 3 of the accounts) but the news broke in July 2017 of the Raiders 83 takeover. It took until November 2018 for the accounts to be filed and November 2019 for strike off to be applied for, some 18 months after the accounts were signed and over two years after the takeover was announced. |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Aug 27, 2021 12:34:39 GMT
Any reference to football is a moot point here because the withdrawal of the Raiders franchise is little to nothing to do with a continuing company and football teams arent franchised. Franchising rights/licesnes are a very niche area of law I care not to get into in the level of detail it probably warrants. I guess the closest high profile example I can give is linked to rail networks. Government (or the BBL) control the rail contracts and who they give them to (or franchise licenses for a spot in the league based on geographical area). Southern rail, a company in its own right for example, have a contract to put their trains on south coast railway lines (Plymouth raiders had the license from the BBL to have a franchise in the league). Southern rail go bust because they arent making enough money and Virgin Railway come in and take the contract off the government (The Plymouth Patriots get the license off the league) and run their trains on the south coast lines. Virgin rail may or may not have their own people working for them. They may recruit new people. Virgin Rail may headhunt people from the recently defunct Southern Rail (like Patriots did with Paul James), but do they have an obligation as a completely separate company to pay the now out of work Southern Rail workers? Obviously not. I hope that clears it up, its a pretty shi*ty example but the best I could think of at this ungodly hour. Great example this! I was more thinking along the lines of the ending of the employment contract and why they can't be 'honoured' in two very distinct situations as opposed to what the franchise withdrawal might have triggered. I'd still suggest the withdrawal of the franchise by the BBL is directly linked to the inability of Raiders 83 to remain a going concern though, surely it's the trigger for withdrawal? Ending the employment contract is no concern of Patriots to be honest. Id imagine if Raiders were sensible theyd have a clause terminating it if the playing license was withdrawn, but its no concern of the leagues/the patriots. Sorry should have said - theres a few reasons the league can withdraw a franchise from a team - the bottom two franchises are reviewed year on year (and its results can be quite draconian - I know that first hand!) and can be withdrawn based on performance. Id say here it was withdrawn/parked at the turks request owing to venue issues not liquidity, but id only be speculating. |
|
|
|
Post by basketballjoe3 on Aug 27, 2021 13:35:28 GMT
Great example this! I was more thinking along the lines of the ending of the employment contract and why they can't be 'honoured' in two very distinct situations as opposed to what the franchise withdrawal might have triggered. I'd still suggest the withdrawal of the franchise by the BBL is directly linked to the inability of Raiders 83 to remain a going concern though, surely it's the trigger for withdrawal? Ending the employment contract is no concern of Patriots to be honest. Id imagine if Raiders were sensible theyd have a clause terminating it if the playing license was withdrawn, but its no concern of the leagues/the patriots. Sorry should have said - theres a few reasons the league can withdraw a franchise from a team - the bottom two franchises are reviewed year on year (and its results can be quite draconian - I know that first hand!) and can be withdrawn based on performance. Id say here it was withdrawn/parked at the turks request owing to venue issues not liquidity, but id only be speculating. Agree with you on the employment not being a concern of Patriots - if anyone's inferred that from what I've posted, I'm a bit lost as to how? What I am aware of is that although Raiders announced the one year deferral, the BBL only ever publically said they were considering it, the general view (in Plymouth) is that there would be no way back and this was a pure PR play. This inability to field a team would therefore lead to the fact that bids were invited to run the licence. Interestingly the Turks did not go in for this process, they were done. Clearly they have the means to have done so, should they have wished. This has lead to my assumption that there were liquidity issues as they were no longer willing to invest, that this was known before the deferral announcement and this is the basis for the forfeiture of the licence. Probably helps if I stated this beforehand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2021 14:14:57 GMT
What I am aware of is that although Raiders announced the one year deferral, the BBL only ever publically said they were considering it, the general view (in Plymouth) is that there would be no way back and this was a pure PR play. That's they key. While it's possible that an exception might have been made in 20/21, the BBL no longer allow franchises to be parked. That's why there was no talk of Worcester returning and why the rushed to fill the void left by Raiders. Any contracts entered into by Raiders are of no interest to the BBL, and assuming Raiders haven't registered with BE. all players previously registered with Raiders are now free agents. When Leopards signed the three from Royals I didn't have to do any transfer requests. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2021 16:06:45 GMT
Who was the 3rd? Orlando, Elvisi and?
|
|
|
|
Post by basketballjoe3 on Aug 27, 2021 16:14:45 GMT
Who was the 3rd? Orlando, Elvisi and? AJ Roberts did after a bit of a pause... |
|
|
|
Post by raiders92 on Aug 27, 2021 16:50:16 GMT
Ending the employment contract is no concern of Patriots to be honest. Id imagine if Raiders were sensible theyd have a clause terminating it if the playing license was withdrawn, but its no concern of the leagues/the patriots. Sorry should have said - theres a few reasons the league can withdraw a franchise from a team - the bottom two franchises are reviewed year on year (and its results can be quite draconian - I know that first hand!) and can be withdrawn based on performance. Id say here it was withdrawn/parked at the turks request owing to venue issues not liquidity, but id only be speculating. Agree with you on the employment not being a concern of Patriots - if anyone's inferred that from what I've posted, I'm a bit lost as to how? What I am aware of is that although Raiders announced the one year deferral, the BBL only ever publically said they were considering it, the general view (in Plymouth) is that there would be no way back and this was a pure PR play. This inability to field a team would therefore lead to the fact that bids were invited to run the licence. Interestingly the Turks did not go in for this process, they were done. Clearly they have the means to have done so, should they have wished. This has lead to my assumption that there were liquidity issues as they were no longer willing to invest, that this was known before the deferral announcement and this is the basis for the forfeiture of the licence. Probably helps if I stated this beforehand. The issue on the deferral is a problem now is there's no venue for one but two teams nor the two teams if raiders come back as cowboys would say the town isn't big enough for the both of us! So it makes it increasingly unlikely both will survive!! |
|
|
|
Post by basketballjoe3 on Aug 27, 2021 16:59:39 GMT
Agree with you on the employment not being a concern of Patriots - if anyone's inferred that from what I've posted, I'm a bit lost as to how? What I am aware of is that although Raiders announced the one year deferral, the BBL only ever publically said they were considering it, the general view (in Plymouth) is that there would be no way back and this was a pure PR play. This inability to field a team would therefore lead to the fact that bids were invited to run the licence. Interestingly the Turks did not go in for this process, they were done. Clearly they have the means to have done so, should they have wished. This has lead to my assumption that there were liquidity issues as they were no longer willing to invest, that this was known before the deferral announcement and this is the basis for the forfeiture of the licence. Probably helps if I stated this beforehand. The issue on the deferral is a problem now is there's no venue for one but two teams nor the two teams if raiders come back as cowboys would say the town isn't big enough for the both of us! So it makes it increasingly unlikely both will survive!! I'm not sure I follow how Raiders could come back, let alone exist? |
|
|
|
Post by RaidersFan92 on Aug 27, 2021 17:03:51 GMT
Well they’d have no fans as everyone has declared themselves as die hard Patriot fans
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2021 17:55:51 GMT
The only way "Raiders" appear in the BBL is in a couple of years time, with the ltd wound up, Patriots under go a rebrand. i wouldn't rule that out, and it wpyld ve followed by their history getting a bit pf a rewrite.
You read it here first.
|
|
|
|
Post by reallyoldfeenixfan on Aug 27, 2021 18:50:00 GMT
and it wpyld ve followed by their history getting a bit pf a rewrite. You read it here first. Read it here first...........didn't understand it though!! Only joking......enjoy the holiday. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2021 18:59:24 GMT
ffs
fat finger syndrome
|
|
