From what I know a contractual agreement (Contract) on the transfer of a business to a new company with a different method of trading to the previous company under a TUPE arrangement has to fulfill obligations under existig contracts, however the contract at TUPE can be re negotiated to the benefit (not detriment) of the person/persons under contract/s, but redundancies and dismissals can take place in the event that the New company cannot perform to it's original projections, when the transfer of undertaking took place.
In other words I, like you, haven't a clue what transpired.

Don't worry, Cameron has workers' hard-won rights under TUPE firmly in his basstard sights the same as all other workers' protections.

I suspect Cameron will be rather more worried about the multitude of sights trained on him in the next few days than have time to have time to trample on the plebs

I blame Thatcher.

Didn't she repeal the truck acts?

I believe it was during her reign. Perhaps it would have saved previous regimes by paying players in vouchers redeemable only in the club shop?

Well, that's where I've spent most of my wages over the years..

Didn't' George Best say the same?

If I'm honest FA, I feel that any 'proper' business man who leaves big loopholes, like not having the specific exit points properly written, line by line, into the contact, is a bit of a muppet and deserves what he gets. It's unfortunate when the resulting problem fall on his successors. That said, I still have enormous sympathy for FC, who was the victim of circumstances, not of his making, in so many ways.

FA can you please help my understanding of this by explaining why the High Court claim is for unfair dismissal, rather than breach of contract? Or have the media ( oh surely they never do that...) misrepresented FC's case? If there was a contract, then wouldnt the claim be for that, as that is the simplest easiest thing to demonstrate to a judge? - even a verbal one, as you point out. But it is unfair dismissal, which I thought was an issue for Employment Tribunals?

It isn't for unfair dismissal, which is a statutory breach. It's for wrongful dismissal, which is a breach of contract.

Wrongful dismissal claims can be heard in a Tribunal, but also in the County Court or High Court, depending on the amount being claimed. Franny's solicitors reportedly said his case is heading for the High Court, which means it is over £25K.

To be "wrongful", the employee must prove that the employer acted in breach of their contractual obligations in ending the employment, and that as a result the employee has suffered a loss.

In unfair dismissal cases the tribunal can award compensation, but that is not the case for wrongful dismissal, which is a simple question of what the employee lost. That would be whatever he was due under his contract. Including wages, perks, bonuses, pension contributions etc. But no compo.

I haven't checked the dates, but frommemory his contract was due to expire afer 3 years in Sept 2015. If that is so, then my fingers and toes suggest he was sacked less than 2 years from start of employment and so wouldn't be eligible for unfair dismissal anyway, but there's no qualifying period for wrongful dismissal.

I think FC would have started his employment with the Bulls before April 2012 - so just needed one year to have the right to pursue unfair dismissal.

However putting aside the legal details I think most would agree that while in the end FC was not able to get the results from the team required he had stood by the club in some of the most difficult years in its history - and for this if nothing else deserves to be treated fairly by his former employer

Neither was he responsible for the fact that a number of his key players cut and ran rather than be 'tuped'. It's sad it's come to all this, in truth.