Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:17 pm Much speculative discussion has taken place about certain aspects of the potential transfer of shares to a new owner that may take place soon. But I don't think that any of that has considered the possible impact on employees of the Club, who must have a large degree of worry. You might expect that their employer, the AFC, might be keeping them fully involved and providing assurance and indeed may have set up an internal or external counselling support to deal with any concerns that employees might have.

Perhaps the BOD have done those various things.

I think it must be beholden on the AFC Board and the preferred bidder to very quickly spell out how they see any changes affecting those who are employees. To me the position of employees is essential to the negotiations. It should not be forgotten that a reassured workforce, properly organised and motivated, will be essential to the ongoing successful performance of the club.

To my mind, it would be unforgivable if, to all intents and purposes, the employees were largely forgotten in the negotiations. And to my mind, it is equally beholden on the Trust members, when considering whether to approve the preferred bidder or not, to take into consideration this aspect of the bidder's proposal for the future of the Club.

But I believe there is considerable confusion about who is an employee of the County. The figures shown in the AFC Annual Accounts for year ending 30 June 2022 states that there are 115 employees, without stating whom those employees by category are, other than “ including directors”. In respect of the AFC, the inclusion of directors in this total is almost certainly wrong,. I would be very certain that they are not employed under contracts of employment, which is the fundamental requirement for categorisation as an employee.

I believe that an accepted preferred bidder must and will very quickly, after assuming control of the AFC, look at the HR organisation of the off-field activities and make judgements about what is the correct future structure to achieve its commercial objectives.

However, what existing employees should recognise and be assured about is that nothing changes for their employment status or their contracts of employment. Their employment as employees of the AFC carries on exactly as before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights or statutory rights just because an organisation purchases shares of the Club. Without their agreement nothing can be changed in their contracts, unless those contracts provide for a one sided change. Contracts of employment cannot be ended simply because someone else has taken majority control of the company. If contracts have to be amended or ended the employees concerned will be able to rely on all their employment law rights, including for redundancy, breach of contract etc.etc.

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:49 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:17 pm Much speculative discussion has taken place about certain aspects of the potential transfer of shares to a new owner that may take place soon. But I don't think that any of that has considered the possible impact on employees of the Club, who must have a large degree of worry. You might expect that their employer, the AFC, might be keeping them fully involved and providing assurance and indeed may have set up an internal or external counselling support to deal with any concerns that employees might have.

Perhaps the BOD have done those various things.

I think it must be beholden on the AFC Board and the preferred bidder to very quickly spell out how they see any changes affecting those who are employees. To me the position of employees is essential to the negotiations. It should not be forgotten that a reassured workforce, properly organised and motivated, will be essential to the ongoing successful performance of the club.

To my mind, it would be unforgivable if, to all intents and purposes, the employees were largely forgotten in the negotiations. And to my mind, it is equally beholden on the Trust members, when considering whether to approve the preferred bidder or not, to take into consideration this aspect of the bidder's proposal for the future of the Club.

But I believe there is considerable confusion about who is an employee of the County. The figures shown in the AFC Annual Accounts for year ending 30 June 2022 states that there are 115 employees, without stating whom those employees by category are, other than “ including directors”. In respect of the AFC, the inclusion of directors in this total is almost certainly wrong,. I would be very certain that they are not employed under contracts of employment, which is the fundamental requirement for categorisation as an employee.

I believe that an accepted preferred bidder must and will very quickly, after assuming control of the AFC, look at the HR organisation of the off-field activities and make judgements about what is the correct future structure to achieve its commercial objectives.

However, what existing employees should recognise and be assured about is that nothing changes for their employment status or their contracts of employment. Their employment as employees of the AFC carries on exactly as before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights or statutory rights just because an organisation purchases shares of the Club. Without their agreement nothing can be changed in their contracts, unless those contracts provide for a one sided change. Contracts of employment cannot be ended simply because someone else has taken majority control of the company. If contracts have to be amended or ended the employees concerned will be able to rely on all their employment law rights, including for redundancy, breach of contract etc.etc.

How would they stand if the new owner set up a new parent company and transferred staff functions to the parent company?

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:17 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:49 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:17 pm Much speculative discussion has taken place about certain aspects of the potential transfer of shares to a new owner that may take place soon. But I don't think that any of that has considered the possible impact on employees of the Club, who must have a large degree of worry. You might expect that their employer, the AFC, might be keeping them fully involved and providing assurance and indeed may have set up an internal or external counselling support to deal with any concerns that employees might have.

Perhaps the BOD have done those various things.

I think it must be beholden on the AFC Board and the preferred bidder to very quickly spell out how they see any changes affecting those who are employees. To me the position of employees is essential to the negotiations. It should not be forgotten that a reassured workforce, properly organised and motivated, will be essential to the ongoing successful performance of the club.

To my mind, it would be unforgivable if, to all intents and purposes, the employees were largely forgotten in the negotiations. And to my mind, it is equally beholden on the Trust members, when considering whether to approve the preferred bidder or not, to take into consideration this aspect of the bidder's proposal for the future of the Club.

But I believe there is considerable confusion about who is an employee of the County. The figures shown in the AFC Annual Accounts for year ending 30 June 2022 states that there are 115 employees, without stating whom those employees by category are, other than “ including directors”. In respect of the AFC, the inclusion of directors in this total is almost certainly wrong,. I would be very certain that they are not employed under contracts of employment, which is the fundamental requirement for categorisation as an employee.

I believe that an accepted preferred bidder must and will very quickly, after assuming control of the AFC, look at the HR organisation of the off-field activities and make judgements about what is the correct future structure to achieve its commercial objectives.

However, what existing employees should recognise and be assured about is that nothing changes for their employment status or their contracts of employment. Their employment as employees of the AFC carries on exactly as before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights or statutory rights just because an organisation purchases shares of the Club. Without their agreement nothing can be changed in their contracts, unless those contracts provide for a one sided change. Contracts of employment cannot be ended simply because someone else has taken majority control of the company. If contracts have to be amended or ended the employees concerned will be able to rely on all their employment law rights, including for redundancy, breach of contract etc.etc.

How would they stand if the new owner set up a new parent company and transferred staff functions to the parent company?

Almost certainly their employment position would not change in that circumstance because they would be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations (TUPE)

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:27 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:17 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:49 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:17 pm Much speculative discussion has taken place about certain aspects of the potential transfer of shares to a new owner that may take place soon. But I don't think that any of that has considered the possible impact on employees of the Club, who must have a large degree of worry. You might expect that their employer, the AFC, might be keeping them fully involved and providing assurance and indeed may have set up an internal or external counselling support to deal with any concerns that employees might have.

Perhaps the BOD have done those various things.

I think it must be beholden on the AFC Board and the preferred bidder to very quickly spell out how they see any changes affecting those who are employees. To me the position of employees is essential to the negotiations. It should not be forgotten that a reassured workforce, properly organised and motivated, will be essential to the ongoing successful performance of the club.

To my mind, it would be unforgivable if, to all intents and purposes, the employees were largely forgotten in the negotiations. And to my mind, it is equally beholden on the Trust members, when considering whether to approve the preferred bidder or not, to take into consideration this aspect of the bidder's proposal for the future of the Club.

But I believe there is considerable confusion about who is an employee of the County. The figures shown in the AFC Annual Accounts for year ending 30 June 2022 states that there are 115 employees, without stating whom those employees by category are, other than “ including directors”. In respect of the AFC, the inclusion of directors in this total is almost certainly wrong,. I would be very certain that they are not employed under contracts of employment, which is the fundamental requirement for categorisation as an employee.

I believe that an accepted preferred bidder must and will very quickly, after assuming control of the AFC, look at the HR organisation of the off-field activities and make judgements about what is the correct future structure to achieve its commercial objectives.

However, what existing employees should recognise and be assured about is that nothing changes for their employment status or their contracts of employment. Their employment as employees of the AFC carries on exactly as before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights or statutory rights just because an organisation purchases shares of the Club. Without their agreement nothing can be changed in their contracts, unless those contracts provide for a one sided change. Contracts of employment cannot be ended simply because someone else has taken majority control of the company. If contracts have to be amended or ended the employees concerned will be able to rely on all their employment law rights, including for redundancy, breach of contract etc.etc.

How would they stand if the new owner set up a new parent company and transferred staff functions to the parent company?

Almost certainly their employment position would not change in that circumstance because they would be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations (TUPE)

I've had mixed experiences with TUPE in the past and was just wondering if the new owner wanted to change the way things are so that jobs will be done differently in the future whether this would be a way of achieving that.

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:45 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:27 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:17 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:49 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:17 pm Much speculative discussion has taken place about certain aspects of the potential transfer of shares to a new owner that may take place soon. But I don't think that any of that has considered the possible impact on employees of the Club, who must have a large degree of worry. You might expect that their employer, the AFC, might be keeping them fully involved and providing assurance and indeed may have set up an internal or external counselling support to deal with any concerns that employees might have.

Perhaps the BOD have done those various things.

I think it must be beholden on the AFC Board and the preferred bidder to very quickly spell out how they see any changes affecting those who are employees. To me the position of employees is essential to the negotiations. It should not be forgotten that a reassured workforce, properly organised and motivated, will be essential to the ongoing successful performance of the club.

To my mind, it would be unforgivable if, to all intents and purposes, the employees were largely forgotten in the negotiations. And to my mind, it is equally beholden on the Trust members, when considering whether to approve the preferred bidder or not, to take into consideration this aspect of the bidder's proposal for the future of the Club.

But I believe there is considerable confusion about who is an employee of the County. The figures shown in the AFC Annual Accounts for year ending 30 June 2022 states that there are 115 employees, without stating whom those employees by category are, other than “ including directors”. In respect of the AFC, the inclusion of directors in this total is almost certainly wrong,. I would be very certain that they are not employed under contracts of employment, which is the fundamental requirement for categorisation as an employee.

I believe that an accepted preferred bidder must and will very quickly, after assuming control of the AFC, look at the HR organisation of the off-field activities and make judgements about what is the correct future structure to achieve its commercial objectives.

However, what existing employees should recognise and be assured about is that nothing changes for their employment status or their contracts of employment. Their employment as employees of the AFC carries on exactly as before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights or statutory rights just because an organisation purchases shares of the Club. Without their agreement nothing can be changed in their contracts, unless those contracts provide for a one sided change. Contracts of employment cannot be ended simply because someone else has taken majority control of the company. If contracts have to be amended or ended the employees concerned will be able to rely on all their employment law rights, including for redundancy, breach of contract etc.etc.

How would they stand if the new owner set up a new parent company and transferred staff functions to the parent company?

Almost certainly their employment position would not change in that circumstance because they would be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations (TUPE)

I've had mixed experiences with TUPE in the past and was just wondering if the new owner wanted to change the way things are so that jobs will be done differently in the future whether this would be a way of achieving that.

There would be no problem if the employer was able to achieve that without any changes to contracts of employment. That is unlikely to be the case though, I think. So, if the employer wished to show that changes were necessary, then, in respect of TUPE, he would have show that there was an 'economic, technical or organisational 'reason that justified his actions. Even if that was the case, changes of contract or dismissals for any of the statutory acceptable reasons would still have to comply with legal requirements and the provisions of individual contracts of employment.

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:45 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:27 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:17 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:49 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:17 pm Much speculative discussion has taken place about certain aspects of the potential transfer of shares to a new owner that may take place soon. But I don't think that any of that has considered the possible impact on employees of the Club, who must have a large degree of worry. You might expect that their employer, the AFC, might be keeping them fully involved and providing assurance and indeed may have set up an internal or external counselling support to deal with any concerns that employees might have.

Perhaps the BOD have done those various things.

I think it must be beholden on the AFC Board and the preferred bidder to very quickly spell out how they see any changes affecting those who are employees. To me the position of employees is essential to the negotiations. It should not be forgotten that a reassured workforce, properly organised and motivated, will be essential to the ongoing successful performance of the club.

To my mind, it would be unforgivable if, to all intents and purposes, the employees were largely forgotten in the negotiations. And to my mind, it is equally beholden on the Trust members, when considering whether to approve the preferred bidder or not, to take into consideration this aspect of the bidder's proposal for the future of the Club.

But I believe there is considerable confusion about who is an employee of the County. The figures shown in the AFC Annual Accounts for year ending 30 June 2022 states that there are 115 employees, without stating whom those employees by category are, other than “ including directors”. In respect of the AFC, the inclusion of directors in this total is almost certainly wrong,. I would be very certain that they are not employed under contracts of employment, which is the fundamental requirement for categorisation as an employee.

I believe that an accepted preferred bidder must and will very quickly, after assuming control of the AFC, look at the HR organisation of the off-field activities and make judgements about what is the correct future structure to achieve its commercial objectives.

However, what existing employees should recognise and be assured about is that nothing changes for their employment status or their contracts of employment. Their employment as employees of the AFC carries on exactly as before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights or statutory rights just because an organisation purchases shares of the Club. Without their agreement nothing can be changed in their contracts, unless those contracts provide for a one sided change. Contracts of employment cannot be ended simply because someone else has taken majority control of the company. If contracts have to be amended or ended the employees concerned will be able to rely on all their employment law rights, including for redundancy, breach of contract etc.etc.

How would they stand if the new owner set up a new parent company and transferred staff functions to the parent company?

Almost certainly their employment position would not change in that circumstance because they would be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations (TUPE)

I've had mixed experiences with TUPE in the past and was just wondering if the new owner wanted to change the way things are so that jobs will be done differently in the future whether this would be a way of achieving that.

There would be no problem if the employer was able to achieve that without any changes to contracts of employment. That is unlikely to be the case though, I think. So, if the employer wished to show that changes were necessary, then, in respect of TUPE, he would have show that there was an 'economic, technical or organisational 'reason that justified his actions. Even if that was the case, changes of contract or dismissals for any of the statutory acceptable reasons would still have to comply with legal requirements and the provisions of individual contracts of employment.

Have you ever come across a situation where an old employer decides staff are within scope for TUPE and so will transfer on a given date but the new employer decides they are not in scope as the job is now to be delivered in a very different way resulting in the staff ending up in limbo out of a job and heading to the lengthy tribunal process?

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 4:27 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:55 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:45 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:27 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 3:17 pm

Amberexile wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:49 pm

Chris Davis wrote: September 18th, 2023, 2:17 pm Much speculative discussion has taken place about certain aspects of the potential transfer of shares to a new owner that may take place soon. But I don't think that any of that has considered the possible impact on employees of the Club, who must have a large degree of worry. You might expect that their employer, the AFC, might be keeping them fully involved and providing assurance and indeed may have set up an internal or external counselling support to deal with any concerns that employees might have.

Perhaps the BOD have done those various things.

I think it must be beholden on the AFC Board and the preferred bidder to very quickly spell out how they see any changes affecting those who are employees. To me the position of employees is essential to the negotiations. It should not be forgotten that a reassured workforce, properly organised and motivated, will be essential to the ongoing successful performance of the club.

To my mind, it would be unforgivable if, to all intents and purposes, the employees were largely forgotten in the negotiations. And to my mind, it is equally beholden on the Trust members, when considering whether to approve the preferred bidder or not, to take into consideration this aspect of the bidder's proposal for the future of the Club.

But I believe there is considerable confusion about who is an employee of the County. The figures shown in the AFC Annual Accounts for year ending 30 June 2022 states that there are 115 employees, without stating whom those employees by category are, other than “ including directors”. In respect of the AFC, the inclusion of directors in this total is almost certainly wrong,. I would be very certain that they are not employed under contracts of employment, which is the fundamental requirement for categorisation as an employee.

I believe that an accepted preferred bidder must and will very quickly, after assuming control of the AFC, look at the HR organisation of the off-field activities and make judgements about what is the correct future structure to achieve its commercial objectives.

However, what existing employees should recognise and be assured about is that nothing changes for their employment status or their contracts of employment. Their employment as employees of the AFC carries on exactly as before. They do not lose any of their contractual rights or statutory rights just because an organisation purchases shares of the Club. Without their agreement nothing can be changed in their contracts, unless those contracts provide for a one sided change. Contracts of employment cannot be ended simply because someone else has taken majority control of the company. If contracts have to be amended or ended the employees concerned will be able to rely on all their employment law rights, including for redundancy, breach of contract etc.etc.

How would they stand if the new owner set up a new parent company and transferred staff functions to the parent company?

Almost certainly their employment position would not change in that circumstance because they would be protected by the Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment Regulations (TUPE)

I've had mixed experiences with TUPE in the past and was just wondering if the new owner wanted to change the way things are so that jobs will be done differently in the future whether this would be a way of achieving that.

There would be no problem if the employer was able to achieve that without any changes to contracts of employment. That is unlikely to be the case though, I think. So, if the employer wished to show that changes were necessary, then, in respect of TUPE, he would have show that there was an 'economic, technical or organisational 'reason that justified his actions. Even if that was the case, changes of contract or dismissals for any of the statutory acceptable reasons would still have to comply with legal requirements and the provisions of individual contracts of employment.

Have you ever come across a situation where an old employer decides staff are within scope for TUPE and so will transfer on a given date but the new employer decides they are not in scope as the job is now to be delivered in a very different way resulting in the staff ending up in limbo out of a job and heading to the lengthy tribunal process?

It has to be taken in two parts. First the 'old' employer has to identify, which employees are attached to the 'economic undertaking' or part of that is being transferred and inform those employees and the new employer of that . Of course, it is possible for the new employer to challenge that but it would be very difficult for him because the presumtion would be that the old employer has a far greater knowledge of the facts. Prima facie, that will be enough for a Tribunal to consider the second part. So,on to the second part. Automatically, by virtue of TUPE, the employees' contracts of employment transfer to the new employer at the moment of transfer. The fact that the job is delivered in a very different way may provide an 'economic, technical or organisational' reason, which justified detrimental action against, what by virtue of law are now the 'new' employer's employees, would only provide a defence against an automatic finding of unfair dismissal on the grounds of TUPE. However, even if that defence was allowed, the new employer would still have to convince the Tribunal that the dismissals fell within the statutory fair dismissal reasons and that a fair procedure had taken place in respect of any dismissals.

Unfortunately, it would always require the affected employees to go to a Tribunal unless a compromise could be agrred through ACAS as part of the Tribunal process.