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

[The Spider]

As I see it this is either a storm in a teacup, an innocent admin error, or someone has been caught deliberately trying to circumvent the rules and deceiving the Club's membership whilst doing so...........hopefully one of the first two, but if deliberate then I hope there's no attempt at a cover up and those responsible come clean and take what's coming to them. The current President is very quick to produce blogs when things are irking him, so let's hope he's equally forthcoming on this as the longer the Club remain silent the more mud will be flung at them, and the more damaging it will become.

[NathanQP]

I'll have a word with Nicola. Outrageous sensationalism. Probably a Clyde fan.

He clearly doesn't care about the tons(300 odd) votes he'll lose with this stance

[an86]

25 minutes ago, The Spider said:

As I see it this is either a storm in a teacup, an innocent admin error, or someone has been caught deliberately trying to circumvent the rules and deceiving the Club's membership whilst doing so...........hopefully one of the first two, but if deliberate then I hope there's no attempt at a cover up and those responsible come clean and take what's coming to them. The current President is very quick to produce blogs when things are irking him, so let's hope he's equally forthcoming on this as the longer the Club remain silent the more mud will be flung at them, and the more damaging it will become.

There should have been a statement on the website today. It comes as no surprise that there wasn't, though.

[shawfield shed boy]

The Snobs. Judges and worlds peers get away with it every day, Queens Park which includes many of the above will be fine....Wrong but true

[haufdaft]

As I see it this is either a storm in a teacup, an innocent admin error, or someone has been caught deliberately trying to circumvent the rules and deceiving the Club's membership whilst doing so...........hopefully one of the first two, but if deliberate then I hope there's no attempt at a cover up and those responsible come clean and take what's coming to them. The current President is very quick to produce blogs when things are irking him, so let's hope he's equally forthcoming on this as the longer the Club remain silent the more mud will be flung at them, and the more damaging it will become.

This was not a secret. I'm sure it was in the newspapers a couple of years ago that Queens Park were paying a peppercorn wage as to entitle them to sell on fees.

To pretend that interested members didn't know or that it may have been an admin error is laughable.

[The Spider]

not aware of that, but if the case then why did the authorities not pick up on it then?

[Velvet Donkey]

Quite a lot of assumptions here all based on a Daily Record article!                     ...Are HMRC actually involved?

A perfect opportunity for the likes of shed boy.  World peers and 'fighting the good fight'...good grief!

So a journalist has seen some contracts.  A £1 'consideration' on a contract isn't an unusual thing, and it's a fun  story to  imagine that they are actually paid that and bring up the minimum wage , slave labour ,  bowler hats etc.

I would hope that our amateur status, being central to our club, has been carefully managed - especially given other clubs' problems, but that remains to be seen.  If there is wrongdoing, is it deliberately underhand (is there really anything to gain?), or incompetent neglect. ?

Not sure if haufdaft can expand on what he understands of 'sell on fees' as they apply at QP.

[Velvet Donkey]

...and do we really expect our club to release official statements in response to Daily Record articles and a bunch of excitable halfwits on Pie and Bovril?

 

[Mick1867]

46 minutes ago, shawfield shed boy said:

The Snobs. Judges and worlds peers get away with it every day, Queens Park which includes many of the above will be fine....Wrong but true

Whit?? Honestly Shiny one day you will make sense 

 

[Mick1867]

Haufdaft is a fanny. I thought that was pretty obvious 

[an86]

22 minutes ago, Velvet Donkey said:

...and do we really expect our club to release official statements in response to Daily Record articles and a bunch of excitable halfwits on Pie and Bovril?

 

I do expect the club to comment on a potentially serious matter reported in the national press, yes. If there's nothing in the reports, come out and rubbish them. 

[Legless]

Quite a lot of assumptions here all based on a Daily Record article!                     ...Are HMRC actually involved?
A perfect opportunity for the likes of shed boy.  World peers and 'fighting the good fight'...good grief!
So a journalist has seen some contracts.  A £1 'consideration' on a contract isn't an unusual thing, and it's a fun  story to  imagine that they are actually paid that and bring up the minimum wage , slave labour ,  bowler hats etc.
I would hope that our amateur status, being central to our club, has been carefully managed - especially given other clubs' problems, but that remains to be seen.  If there is wrongdoing, is it deliberately underhand (is there really anything to gain?), or incompetent neglect. ?
Not sure if haufdaft can expand on what he understands of 'sell on fees' as they apply at QP.

Truth is though that the players are not amateur, therefore the club isn't as you say an amateur club.

[Bring Your Own Socks]

2 hours ago, an86 said:

I do expect the club to comment on a potentially serious matter reported in the national press, yes. If there's nothing in the reports, come out and rubbish them. 

Is the General Manager's comment not representative of the club's position? I'm with Velvet Donkey on this one. Whatever is said will be twisted to string out a cheapshot story that so far is unfounded and nothing more than gossip. Making defensive statements simply gives validity to something that's invalid.

Let's get back to the match thread and support the team.

[Velvet Donkey]

2 hours ago, Legless said:

Truth is though that the players are not amateur, therefore the club isn't as you say an amateur club.

Legless, what is your definition of a professional contract? 

Here is FIFA's:

FIFA defines professionals as players who have a written contract with a club and are paid more for their footballing activity than the expenses they effectively incur. All other players are considered to be amateurs (some of them are paid for playing, some not).

2.4.2

an amateur player signing this form shall not be paid more than the expenses he effectively incurs in return for his footballing activity.

[Pesadilla]

Loads of c***s bothered about the technicalities of QP rather than worrying why their own  club is at their level.

Though I did like that Walter c**t as a WUM. 

[Legless]

Legless, what is your definition of a professional contract? 
Here is FIFA's:
FIFA defines professionals as players who have a written contract with a club and are paid more for their footballing activity than the expenses they effectively incur. All other players are considered to be amateurs (some of them are paid for playing, some not).
2.4.2 an amateur player signing this form shall not be paid more than the expenses he effectively incurs in return for his footballing activity.

An amateur player is released after 28 days if he wants to leave, an amateur player can't be sold. Therefore it is a pretence to say QP are an amateur club as they want the benefits of professional contracts to hold players and for financial gain.

[The Spider]

4 hours ago, Legless said:

An amateur player is released after 28 days if he wants to leave, an amateur player can't be sold. Therefore it is a pretence to say QP are an amateur club as they want the benefits of professional contracts to hold players and for financial gain.

I'll agree with some of this. My understanding is that there used to be an historical agreement between Queen's and the SFA that once Queen's had signed a player, another club could not approach that player until the end of the season. That arrangement was to provide Queen's with protection against other clubs taking our players at random throughout the season thereby meaning that we only had to rebuild the team once a year rather than on an ongoing basis. Then once FIFA started meddling with contractual definitions (am I not right in thinking that at one stage all amateur players were defined as part-time professionals?), there was a need to put things back on their original footing, so yes Queens are "guilty" (if that's the correct word) of seeking to put players on contracts that mean we keep them for an entire season.

Your suggestion that because the players are on professional contracts we can sell them is just drivel though. Unless you can prove otherwise I am not aware that Queen's have ever sold any player as being an amateur club they are simply not able to. What you might be getting at are youth development fees / training compensation fees which FIFA introduced and which only apply to players under 23. I'm no expert in this area but I believe there to be two types, Firstly ones that are payable at the point of initial transfer between two clubs (e.g. the £170k that Rangers got from Dundee Utd. for Charlie Telfer). The second part to the FIFA scheme is where if (for example) Dundee Utd. then sell Charlie Telfer on to another club, then Rangers are entitled to additional compensation of 5% of that fee.

Perhaps someone can clarify this, but my understanding is that there has never been a test case to determine whether amateur clubs aren't entitled to either (as Dundee Utd. claimed when they initially took and then sold on Barry Douglas and again with Andy Robertson). Where Queen's cashed in on that one is that when we suggested to Dundee Utd. that we should refer the Robertson case to a higher authority for a definitive ruling on the initial compensation, they caved in and offered a higher % of any sell-on fee in the belief that it would be the cheaper option, Andy's meteoric rise proved to be bad judgement on their part!

So I don't believe the professional contracts have anything whatsoever to do with sell-on compensation, but are simply to allow us to go back to the way things used to be which ring-fenced our players for a full season. One final point. Unlike any other Scottish club you care to mention, none of any money from such btransactions finds its way into the pockets of any players, shareholders or committee, but instead every single penny goes back into our youth development, ladies team and community development (multiple programmes if you care to look https://www.facebook.com/QueensParkInTheCommunity?ref=hl), so I for one am happy to maintain the moral high ground on that aspect at least.

 

[haufdaft]

I'll agree with some of this. My understanding is that there used to be an historical agreement between Queen's and the SFA that once Queen's had signed a player, another club could not approach that player until the end of the season. That arrangement was to provide Queen's with protection against other clubs taking our players at random throughout the season thereby meaning that we only had to rebuild the team once a year rather than on an ongoing basis. Then once FIFA started meddling with contractual definitions (am I not right in thinking that at one stage all amateur players were defined as part-time professionals?), there was a need to put things back on their original footing, so yes Queens are "guilty" (if that's the correct word) of seeking to put players on contracts that mean we keep them for an entire season.
Your suggestion that because the players are on professional contracts we can sell them is just drivel though. Unless you can prove otherwise I am not aware that Queen's have ever sold any player as being an amateur club they are simply not able to. What you might be getting at are youth development fees / training compensation fees which FIFA introduced and which only apply to players under 23. I'm no expert in this area but I believe there to be two types, Firstly ones that are payable at the point of initial transfer between two clubs (e.g. the £170k that Rangers got from Dundee Utd. for Charlie Telfer). The second part to the FIFA scheme is where if (for example) Dundee Utd. then sell Charlie Telfer on to another club, then Rangers are entitled to additional compensation of 5% of that fee.
Perhaps someone can clarify this, but my understanding is that there has never been a test case to determine whether amateur clubs aren't entitled to either (as Dundee Utd. claimed when they initially took and then sold on Barry Douglas and again with Andy Robertson). Where Queen's cashed in on that one is that when we suggested to Dundee Utd. that we should refer the Robertson case to a higher authority for a definitive ruling on the initial compensation, they caved in and offered a higher % of any sell-on fee in the belief that it would be the cheaper option, Andy's meteoric rise proved to be bad judgement on their part!
So I don't believe the professional contracts have anything whatsoever to do with sell-on compensation, but are simply to allow us to go back to the way things used to be which ring-fenced our players for a full season. One final point. Unlike any other Scottish club you care to mention, none of any money from such btransactions finds its way into the pockets of any players, shareholders or committee, but instead every single penny goes back into our youth development, ladies team and community development (multiple programmes if you care to look https://www.facebook.com/QueensParkInTheCommunity?ref=hl), so I for one am happy to maintain the moral high ground on that aspect at least.
 

I don't believe anyone is claiming that monies are used for anyone's personal gain.

Queens Park seem to want to be both amateur and professional. Simply put, you can't.

The fact that Dundee united felt the need to offer more than the development fee to sign Andrew Robertson shows that he was not simply an amateur player.

I'd also be interested why the SFA would ever protect Queens Park from their players transferring during the season if they were amateurs. Why this special status? Was it available to other amateur teams?

Queens Park were able to put more money into youth development etc than other clubs by not paying their players the going rate. This option was not available to other clubs. All who have a substantial wage bill as a percentage of income.

Thoroughly unfair.

[Legless]

I'll agree with some of this. My understanding is that there used to be an historical agreement between Queen's and the SFA that once Queen's had signed a player, another club could not approach that player until the end of the season. That arrangement was to provide Queen's with protection against other clubs taking our players at random throughout the season thereby meaning that we only had to rebuild the team once a year rather than on an ongoing basis. Then once FIFA started meddling with contractual definitions (am I not right in thinking that at one stage all amateur players were defined as part-time professionals?), there was a need to put things back on their original footing, so yes Queens are "guilty" (if that's the correct word) of seeking to put players on contracts that mean we keep them for an entire season.
Your suggestion that because the players are on professional contracts we can sell them is just drivel though. Unless you can prove otherwise I am not aware that Queen's have ever sold any player as being an amateur club they are simply not able to. What you might be getting at are youth development fees / training compensation fees which FIFA introduced and which only apply to players under 23. I'm no expert in this area but I believe there to be two types, Firstly ones that are payable at the point of initial transfer between two clubs (e.g. the £170k that Rangers got from Dundee Utd. for Charlie Telfer). The second part to the FIFA scheme is where if (for example) Dundee Utd. then sell Charlie Telfer on to another club, then Rangers are entitled to additional compensation of 5% of that fee.
Perhaps someone can clarify this, but my understanding is that there has never been a test case to determine whether amateur clubs aren't entitled to either (as Dundee Utd. claimed when they initially took and then sold on Barry Douglas and again with Andy Robertson). Where Queen's cashed in on that one is that when we suggested to Dundee Utd. that we should refer the Robertson case to a higher authority for a definitive ruling on the initial compensation, they caved in and offered a higher % of any sell-on fee in the belief that it would be the cheaper option, Andy's meteoric rise proved to be bad judgement on their part!
So I don't believe the professional contracts have anything whatsoever to do with sell-on compensation, but are simply to allow us to go back to the way things used to be which ring-fenced our players for a full season. One final point. Unlike any other Scottish club you care to mention, none of any money from such btransactions finds its way into the pockets of any players, shareholders or committee, but instead every single penny goes back into our youth development, ladies team and community development (multiple programmes if you care to look https://www.facebook.com/QueensParkInTheCommunity?ref=hl), so I for one am happy to maintain the moral high ground on that aspect at least.
 

Problem is you can't have it both ways, if you want to be amateur then you should have players signed on amateur contracts, which allows the players the same freedom as amateur players are entitled to. If you want to tie players down like professionals then you're contradicting any amateur status you claim to have.
The amateur status is false as all senior players at QP are on professional contracts and QP are in breach of employment laws, initially on the minimum wage or if the players expenses are remuneration then they are in breach of income tax laws.
Thirdly if they do not allow a player to move when he requests a move as he is professional then they are in breach of employment laws by denying the party the opportunity to make a wage in that profession.
QP need to clear it up before they end up in court with the HMRC.

[The Spider]

2 hours ago, haufdaft said:

I'd also be interested why the SFA would ever protect Queens Park from their players transferring during the season if they were amateurs. Why this special status? Was it available to other amateur teams?

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.