Queen’s Park break 150 years of amateur tradition and now face HMRC crackdown

[haufdaft]

Personally I don't find it a breach of sporting integrity that if Queen's spend time developing our youth players that other clubs can't simply waltz in a pick them in August after a few impressive first team performances.

Don't be an amateur team then.

As for you uniqueness, who cares! Why should the SFA give Queens Park special status?

This allows you to invest more in your youth programme.

Simply unfair

[Legless]

That one is easily answered - it was the SFA's recognition that Queen's were unique by being the only amateur team in the British senior leagues, and therefore merited special consideration to make it a more level playing field in the environment they operated in. Personally I don't find it a breach of sporting integrity that if Queen's spend time developing our youth players that other clubs can't simply waltz in a pick them in August after a few impressive first team performances. I'm relying on second hasnd information from my childhood here, but at one point I was told that Eddie Gray, Derek Parlane and Danny McGrain were QP youth players, and I know that Aidan McGeady was just one of many in recent times who were cherry-picked by bigger clubs before we could even bloof them at first team level. I have no problem with that, as cream will always rise to the top, but is it wrong that we should be allowed to keep signed players for a whole season to stop other clubs taking them willy-nilly whenever it suits them. we are not talking slave labour here - any player signing for us knows they are signing on for a full season and that they'll be free to go elsewhere therefater, so what's the problem with that side of things?
The fact we don't pay them the £1 (the bit that HMRC are interested in) is a separate issue and needs to be resolved one way or the other, but you ain't gonna convince me that keeping our players for a season is either unfair or breaches sporting integrity.

If QP are amateur then the players should be on amateur contracts. Why lie or deceive about the status? Junior clubs are not allowed this dispensation so why should it be afforded to QP?

[Arachnophile]

18 minutes ago, Legless said:

If QP are amateur then the players should be on amateur contracts. Why lie or deceive about the status? Junior clubs are not allowed this dispensation so why should it be afforded to QP?

Because it annoys Clyde fans.

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, Legless said:

If QP are amateur then the players should be on amateur contracts. Why lie or deceive about the status? Junior clubs are not allowed this dispensation so why should it be afforded to QP?

That's a fair question, and the obvious answer is that they should be, but something in the back of my mind says that this all changed when the leagues came under the umbrella of the spfl, with the key part of that being "professional" and that we were no longer allowed to register our players under amateur contracts. That might be wishful thinking on my part, but the truth is that i don't know, neither do you, and nor does the fud who wrote the article. Elsewhere someone observed that the contracts were written by the league's lawyers and that the spfl have been receiving them for years now, so why the sudden fuss?

I think it's not to with the contracts themselves, but the fact that the players don't actually receive the notional £1 as that would mean we were then paying them1 The whole thing's a bit of a mess really and it would be helpful if the Club made some statement or someone who actually understands the regulations provided insightful comment. Until then it's all just wild speculation, both for QP fans and those enjoying their pot-shots. On the positive side, we've at least established that Haufdaft is 50% less daft than the rest of his itinerant brethren

[holsten]

this is not a pop at Q.P. more a general query about part time players on pro contracts

What does payed for expenses mean ?

do part time players get payed for petrol money ,mileage accrued ,if you have a amicable employer does the club pay your hourly rate in your normal profession if you have a big cup game and you work shifts  

[Ronald Villiers]

I see the president has blogged on this, saying that QP are bastions for the amateur game, that being said will players asking to be released be automatically let go after 28 days, if not then they are treating the players as professional.
Denial is nothing short of shameful!

[Dunning1874]

19 hours ago, The Spider said:

Personally I don't find it a breach of sporting integrity that if Queen's spend time developing our youth players that other clubs can't simply waltz in a pick them in August after a few impressive first team performances.

 is it wrong that we should be allowed to keep signed players for a whole season to stop other clubs taking them willy-nilly whenever it suits them

Well, tough. If you choose to be amateur, that should allow players the freedom to sign a professional contract with another club whenever it suits the player. That's not an unfair disadvantage, it's simply the natural consequence of the choice your club has made to remain amateur.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Pretty shoddy that they prevent people who work for them as volunteers from seeking paid employment. Can't think of any other organisation that would do that.

[The Spider]

Excellent response from our President, and despite suggestions from someof our support that the Club should say nothing at all, it provides all the clarification that this issue needed http://www.queensparkfc.co.uk/?p=2278 . Each individual who reads it can form their own opinion about the merits of the Club's policy with regard to this arrangement, but at the end of the day it's outsiders who are trying to de-rail a set-up that our players knowingly enter into, and they key part of the statement is that "HMRC did not have a problem with this either at the time this solution was set up, or at our last payroll audit. Neither HMRC nor our accountants and auditors have questioned these arrangements."

 

[Mybitchunderprotest]

Simply unfair

Boo fucking hoo. It's no fair.

If other clubs think it's unfair is there anything to prevent them seeking a similar arrangement?

[Arachnophile]

1 hour ago, Mybitchunderprotest said:

 

Boo fucking hoo. It's no fair.

If other clubs think it's unfair is there anything to prevent them seeking a similar arrangement?

 

Agree with this. I don't see any serious suggestion that this is giving us any sort of unfair advantage. Our almost constant presence in the bottom tier of Scottish football confirms that.

It simply seems to be a practical way to allow an amateur club to exist in a professional world.

 

[Bring Your Own Socks]

3 hours ago, Arachnophile said:

It simply seems to be a practical way to allow an amateur club to exist in a professional world.

 

Which is probably the reason why the clause that was appropriate in the old SFL form was no longer available in the SPFL form. A mechanism that allows ex-pros another chance at the game where they otherwise might drift away. Fraser Wishart really needs a good look in the mirror for that alone. 

Bottom line is it's a poor piece of journalism from a rag of a paper. HMRC aren't interested. FIFA aren't interested. The only interest has come from the rag and a few dafties from Clyde.The paper (I can't call it a newspaper) filled a few columns on a Friday. And Clyde fans are just...well, Clyde fans. Nuff said.