The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Kdawg]

I'm going to ignore the post above.
 
I'm hearing several Championship club chairmen have had advice that HMRC aren't best pleased with the prospect of clubs signing players on month to month contracts then furloughing them.
 
I know Dunfermline will forever be evil in your eyes but surely it makes sense to take the course of action we have so we don't get our fingers burnt further down the line?
 
 

What would you rather have, HMRC ‘not best pleased’ or looking after players and their families?

Clubs should make the most of the scheme up until the point it’s removed. If that means an extra couple of wages for players, it will make a big difference to them.

[da_no_1]

What would you rather have, HMRC ‘not best pleased’ or looking after players and their families?

Clubs should make the most of the scheme up until the point it’s removed. If that means an extra couple of wages for players, it will make a big difference to them.

I'd like to think our chairman does what's best for the club long term.

[Brashy's Boots]

I'd like to think our chairman does what's best for the club long term.

That faith in the board room served you well in the past, didn't it?

[Ro Sham Bo]

1 hour ago, da_no_1 said:

I'm going to ignore the post above.

 

I'm hearing several Championship club chairmen have had advice that HMRC aren't best pleased with the prospect of clubs signing players on month to month contracts then furloughing them.

 

I know Dunfermline will forever be evil in your eyes but surely it makes sense to take the course of action we have so we don't get our fingers burnt further down the line?

 

 

It's a good point and I read your chairman saying the Pars considered offering short term deals but decided against it after seeking professional advice. 

It's possible that someone else might advise differently but when I read Bill Clark talking about offering the extensions to our players I did wonder about the legality of it all. The fact we haven't announced anything yet suggests it's not a straightforward decision. 

[da_no_1]

That faith in the board room served you well in the past, didn't it?

FFS let it go

[Rovers1992/1993]

FFS let it go

[emoji23] You were the one that came on here to have a dig at Rovers apparently “shafting the taxman”.

Now you’re not happy when Rovers fans are reminding you about your club shafting their creditors, not too long ago [emoji23]

[da_no_1]

[emoji23] You were the one that came on here to have a dig at Rovers apparently “shafting the taxman”.

Now you’re not happy when Rovers fans are reminding you about your club shafting their creditors, not too long ago [emoji23]

Read the thread, I was on the wind up.

Do you guys honestly think if we would've binned 17 players if there no possible ramifications further down the line? Seems pretty obvious RM has concerns that all might not be as straightforward as it may have seemed

[San Starko Rover]

Read the thread, I was on the wind up.

Do you guys honestly think if we would've binned 17 players if there no possible ramifications further down the line? Seems pretty obvious RM has concerns that all might not be as straightforward as it may have seemed

Speculation your honour, my learned colleague has no idea why RM binned 17 players.

[Scary Bear]

4 hours ago, da_no_1 said:

4 hours ago, Kdawg said:

What would you rather have, HMRC ‘not best pleased’ or looking after players and their families?

Clubs should make the most of the scheme up until the point it’s removed. If that means an extra couple of wages for players, it will make a big difference to them.

I'd like to think our chairman does what's best for the club long term.

This could be a good one to bookmark, then cast up at a later date.

[Scary Bear]

3 hours ago, Ro Sham Bo said:

It's a good point and I read your chairman saying the Pars considered offering short term deals but decided against it after seeking professional advice. 

It's possible that someone else might advise differently but when I read Bill Clark talking about offering the extensions to our players I did wonder about the legality of it all. The fact we haven't announced anything yet suggests it's not a straightforward decision. 

To be fair, it wouldn’t surprise me if the powers that be (is it DWP who will be in charge of distributing the money?) decide that new contracts mean no furlough money. In which case, I can see why The Pars aren’t willing to take the risk. It’s not like football clubs usually have a conscience when it comes to releasing players. It’s done in a fairly heartless manner every summer.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Scary Bear

[da_no_1]

This could be a good one to bookmark, then cast up at a later date.

Why?

[Scary Bear]

3 minutes ago, da_no_1 said:

12 minutes ago, Scary Bear said:

This could be a good one to bookmark, then cast up at a later date.

Why?

Why not?

[da_no_1]

Why not?

Good point, well made.

Jeez

[Rovers_Lad]

5 hours ago, da_no_1 said:

Read the thread, I was on the wind up.

Do you guys honestly think if we would've binned 17 players if there no possible ramifications further down the line? Seems pretty obvious RM has concerns that all might not be as straightforward as it may have seemed

The Ayr chairman doesn,t see it an issue

Furlough scheme is full of flaws when us the tax payer are paying for millionaires/multi millionaires furloughing their staff

[da_no_1]

The Ayr chairman doesn,t see it an issue
Furlough scheme is full of flaws when us the tax payer are paying for millionaires/multi millionaires furloughing their staff

I'm not really bothered what he thinks. Listened to him today and he sounds like an American Jim Leishman.

[Rovers_Lad]

It was not a case of whether you were bothered or not but he gave a different perspective/opinion on the furlough scheme and how it could be or should be uitilised

Surprised if his lawyer is correct that the likes of your club and Queens havent utilised it for out of contract players.Then again the advise you and Queens  have been given could well be different hence the reason for releasing/ not renewing contracts of players.

 

[da_no_1]

It was not a case of whether you were bothered or not but he gave a different perspective/opinion on the furlough scheme and how it could be or should be uitilised
Surprised if his lawyer is correct that the likes of your club and Queens havent utilised it for out of contract players.Then again the advise you and Queens  have been given could well be different hence the reason for releasing/ not renewing contracts of players.
 

The advice we've been given HAS to have been different. I'd be struggling to understand the decision too if not.

[Rovers_Lad]

Exactly,so how HMRC or the goverment differentiated is equally as difficult

IMO the furlough scheme is/ will be getting ripped by many companies and the self employed thats it beyond them to investigate a fraction of them .

Christ they cant get a grip of the multi million businesses that are ripping the shite out of the taxpayer

 

I run a business and have 5 of my staff furloughed but are out of contract come end of June .I,m unsure if i,ll need the 5 staff beyond that date but just in case I,ll utilise the goverments extension to the furlough scheme.Is that wrong?

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by Rovers_Lad

[RavyDavy]

The advice we've been given HAS to have been different. I'd be struggling to understand the decision too if not.

From the government's own website:

"If you’re on a fixed term contract

If you were on a fixed term contract your employer can re-employ, furlough and claim for you if your contract expired on or after either:

28 February 2020 and an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 28 February 2020

19 March 2020 and an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 19 March 2020

If your fixed term contract has not already expired, your employer can extend or renew it. Your employer can claim for you if an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 19 March 2020."

So HMRC are not frowning upon it. If your club is receiving advice that goes against this, then they should seek new counsel.

Likelihood is that DAFC made their own decisions out of their own self interest

[da_no_1]

From the government's own website:

 

"If you’re on a fixed term contract

 

If you were on a fixed term contract your employer can re-employ, furlough and claim for you if your contract expired on or after either:

 

28 February 2020 and an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 28 February 2020

 

19 March 2020 and an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 19 March 2020

 

If your fixed term contract has not already expired, your employer can extend or renew it. Your employer can claim for you if an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 19 March 2020."

 

So HMRC are not frowning upon it. If your club is receiving advice that goes against this, then they should seek new counsel.

 

Likelihood is that DAFC made their own decisions out of their own self interest

That doesn't add up though. If it's truly free for all, then there's nothing to be saved by not doing it, if that makes sense. So we're not benefiting and neither are Queens or by the looks of it, Ross County..