Dee Bliss Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Dunfermline and their chairman really aren’t coming across in a nice way during this pandemic crisis. No justification in not furloughing the players punted. Just the 17 shafted, that was nice of McArthur. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 If you're furloughed you cant look for another club?I do agree a bit though, can they not just furlough and they get 80%?Not sure if dunfermline start training that those players can train also? With dunfermline I mean. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Also in defence of Ross we topped up wages to 100%. Hearts actually negotiated pay cuts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 2 hours ago, DA Baracus said: Then they'd be out of work. Doesn't mean the club shouldn't help them whilst they can, especially since it costs no one anything. It does cost the taxpayer a great deal though. I actually think the club have been perfectly sensible (unpopular opinion thread for this pish) as the chancellor has been asked about the unique circumstances footballers are in and didn't sound like he endorsed attempts by clubs to extend wages. He said that HMRC will protect the taxpayer and the scheme should be used by those in "genuine employment", it's pretty clear that despite it being a nice thing to do, extending players contracts by a month may be framed as misuse of the scheme and who knows what punishment HMRC will have dreamt up by the time the bill for this is produced. You would have hoped both the PFA and the SPFL would have spent the last 8 weeks in talks with the UK government seeking the assurances instead the SPFL have been dealing with infighting. As we get more clarity on the situation then we can out the players back on 100% of their wages or renegotiate with them to take the 80% but doing it this way will ensure should HMRC decide this is not what the scheme is to be used for we haven't promised employment longer than we can afford and haven't risked the entire clubs and the livelihoods of those effected. The entire situation is difficult, those simplifying it are I feel letting the powers above football clubs get off Scot free, the SPFL should have been on this situation straight away, the government should have clarified their policy and Universal Credit shouldn't be the cliff edge it will be if you go from £2500 to UC. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 48 minutes ago, Rob1885 said: The club have had 2 opportunities to clear it up so far and haven't taken it. Aye we could do with some form of explanation. I would think there will be one but without making any statement it just leaves it to speculation and currently ‘being a bit shitty’ is the most popular theory. Even if people disagree with the reasoning it can’t be worse than nothing. Under pars United I think we’ve become reasonably well thought of by players. There’s been a few commenting on the fact they’ve been looked after with operations payed for etc when other clubs haven’t bothered. And as mentioned topped up wages currently. It takes a long time for a reputation to be built especially after masterton and it would be disappointing if we’ve significantly damaged that when it wouldn’t have cost the club a penny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 35 minutes ago, 101 said: It does cost the taxpayer a great deal though. I actually think the club have been perfectly sensible (unpopular opinion thread for this pish) as the chancellor has been asked about the unique circumstances footballers are in and didn't sound like he endorsed attempts by clubs to extend wages. He said that HMRC will protect the taxpayer and the scheme should be used by those in "genuine employment", it's pretty clear that despite it being a nice thing to do, extending players contracts by a month may be framed as misuse of the scheme and who knows what punishment HMRC will have dreamt up by the time the bill for this is produced. You would have hoped both the PFA and the SPFL would have spent the last 8 weeks in talks with the UK government seeking the assurances instead the SPFL have been dealing with infighting. As we get more clarity on the situation then we can out the players back on 100% of their wages or renegotiate with them to take the 80% but doing it this way will ensure should HMRC decide this is not what the scheme is to be used for we haven't promised employment longer than we can afford and haven't risked the entire clubs and the livelihoods of those effected. The entire situation is difficult, those simplifying it are I feel letting the powers above football clubs get off Scot free, the SPFL should have been on this situation straight away, the government should have clarified their policy and Universal Credit shouldn't be the cliff edge it will be if you go from £2500 to UC. The PFA and SPFL have been saying to clubs that they should be doing this. I don't know if they have spoken to the government or any experts, but I would imagine that they aren't saying that for nothing. Loads of things cost the taxpayer. Many of them, maybe even most, could go on to universal credit. That costs the taxpayer too. Both are costs that I'm absolutely fine with. I think the chairman/board need to clarify why they have not done it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
da_no_1 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 It's obvious there's more to it than just us being heartless b*****ds. I'm sure the real thinking behind the decision will come out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, da_no_1 said: It's obvious there's more to it than just us being heartless b*****ds. I'm sure the real thinking behind the decision will come out. For sure, it’s not great optics to be the first team to publicly do it though with no explanation of why which is probably what will lead to some polarised opinions in here in the meantime 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayr145 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 23 minutes ago, da_no_1 said: It's obvious there's more to it than just us being heartless b*****ds. I'm sure the real thinking behind the decision will come out. I hope so ,if not your mob look like absolute ws. As an Ayr fan i can take the moral high ground here anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 31 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: The PFA and SPFL have been saying to clubs that they should be doing this. The SPFL has absolutely NOT been telling clubs they should do this. That just isnt true. The players union saying they should isnt a surprise. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Have some faith in Magic Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 If we could have done it without leaving a large liability we absolutely should have kept the players on for a month or two. They surely must have advice that they couldn't take that risk. From a PR point of view it's a mess and a big own goal in not giving an explanation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, ribzanelli said: For sure, it’s not great optics to be the first team to publicly do it though with no explanation of why which is probably what will lead to some polarised opinions in here in the meantime I think including the u20 players in the same list also doesn’t help. 7 players released doesn’t create anywhere near the same headlines. We aren’t releasing substantially more players than anyone else that’s made announcements or any other previous season. But the way our statement is written and especially no clarity on not using furlough for another month when others believe that is a option has attracted negative attention. Edited May 23, 2020 by parsforlife 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 I'm thinking that too. The ironic thing is there were a fair proportion of fans on here from all clubs who would gladly have pumped most of their squads off a cliff 3 months ago.The furlough option wasnt available then. We could and probably should have taken the 80% option and given them an extended contract until october.Thing is though if we dont want them then can they join another club until the furlough is over? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 It would depend on what their extension said. furlough itself doesn’t stop you taking other employment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 1 hour ago, DA Baracus said: The PFA and SPFL have been saying to clubs that they should be doing this. I don't know if they have spoken to the government or any experts, but I would imagine that they aren't saying that for nothing. Loads of things cost the taxpayer. Many of them, maybe even most, could go on to universal credit. That costs the taxpayer too. Both are costs that I'm absolutely fine with. I think the chairman/board need to clarify why they have not done it. Neither the PFA and SPFL have made a public statement as far as I can see and with the chancellor casting doubts over if that's what the scheme should be used for I would only be comfortable with the club following their advice if it was guaranteed, otherwise we risk the whole football club. I agree the decision making process should be given, but I actually think we have done the right thing here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 35 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: The SPFL has absolutely NOT been telling clubs they should do this. That just isnt true. The players union saying they should isnt a surprise. Did seem a suprise that the SPFL would give advice which at the moment isn't consistent with HMRC advice. The thing I would worry about more is that Tom Beadling this morning came across like it was a shock that he would be unemployed, what on earth has his agent been sat doing further proof that at this level agents either don't or can't give players advice in difficult circumstances. I feel sorry for all 17 players but if this has come as a suprise then this is a very sorry mess 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 It would depend on what their extension said. furlough itself doesn’t stop you taking other employment.Mine did "While you are furloughed you cannot undertake any paid work from another employer but you can however engage in voluntary work." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 Not sure what the agent could do, no club in their right mind would offer him a contract and pay 100% of it right now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 On a better note it's very good to hear Jackie McNamara on the radio just now sounding well. Seems like he's making a good recovery. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chubbychops Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Yenitit said: Dunfermline and their chairman really aren’t coming across in a nice way during this pandemic crisis. No justification in not furloughing the players punted. Just the 17 shafted, that was nice of McArthur. So you side with Scott Gardener's claim that Ross ''bullied'' chairmen into voting to end the league? Think we came out of that much better than ICT to be honest. Giving short term contracts to abuse the furlough system is hardly taking the moral high ground either. None of these players were certainties to be offered a new contract. There may well be repercussions for clubs issuing 3 month contracts to players they don't intend to keep. Ross McArthur's job is to protect DAFC in a time of crisis. We don't have a yank sugar daddy to fill the shortfalls. Edited May 23, 2020 by Chubbychops 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.