[santheman]

Arthurlie1981, on 30 January 2012 - 01:09, said:

That's fine but players at the top level want to get paid well & won't get paid the same if they sign an amatuer or non contract. By the way it is interesting you say about the £50 down to £10 as clubs were told that it was not reasonable in terms of retention.

The SJFA have always taken the stance that if a Clubs finances are dramatically altered (eg the loss of a main sponsor) then they can offer reduced terms and will be backed by them. The only problem is no club has to prove that has happened as there is no requirement for accounts to be sent into the SJFA so they are in effect being trusted that what they say is true.
Even taking that into context a reduction from £50 to £10 would be ripping it a bit I agree.

[Senderos]

Seems I was wrongly under the impression that the players club could not offer less than the previous contract to then be able to retain them.
Surely there is a lawyer playing Junior or related to a player that would be able to take this to task and get it scrapped?!

[Arthurlie1981]

santheman, on 30 January 2012 - 14:32, said:

The SJFA have always taken the stance that if a Clubs finances are dramatically altered (eg the loss of a main sponsor) then they can offer reduced terms and will be backed by them. The only problem is no club has to prove that has happened as there is no requirement for accounts to be sent into the SJFA so they are in effect being trusted that what they say is true.
Even taking that into context a reduction from £50 to £10 would be ripping it a bit I agree.

Thanks for clarifying that.