Walking Down The Halbeath Road

[EdinburghPar1975]

Very interesting to see that RM/ DAFC sought advice from two sources to verify what was the impacts of using the scheme.

I'd be interested to hear if those clubs retaining players have had differing advice (or have sought advise externally) about the scheme and potential future impacts. Not for any gloating purposes but just to see if there is a genuine 'grey' area for this. If so shouldn't the PFA be ensuring that they have clear advice themselves from the UK Govt over using the scheme in this way in order for them to communicate to their members? Also, potentially the SFA or the SPFL (not sure whose responsibility this sort of thing would sit with) could be looking at it for the clubs as a whole...

It may be one of the reasons a number of clubs down South and some up here were asking players to defer wages as opposed to using this scheme. The last thing clubs would need if they get through this would be a challenge to their use of the scheme and repayment of monies paid out.

Horrible decision to have to make but in these circumstances I think probably the wisest for the security of the club

Edited May 25, 2020 by EdinburghPar1975
posts before may have thought i was referring to Ross County...

[HoBNob]

25 minutes ago, Mr X said:

But still doesnt say what this advice was or what the "risk" is.

Meanwhile, you'r superior neighbours are extending contracts.

ETA - fair play to him for coming out and making some comment though

QoTS still doing that thing where they don't communicate? I remember from last season SD saying they don't announce released players. Which personally sounds a bit mental. 

[Homer Thompson]

2 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

QoTS still doing that thing where they don't communicate? I remember from last season SD saying they don't announce released players. Which personally sounds a bit mental. 

Looks like it

[Skyline Drifter]

52 minutes ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

Very interesting to see that RM/ DAFC sought advice from two sources to verify what was the impacts of using the scheme.

I'd be interested to hear if those clubs retaining players have had differing advice (or have sought advise externally) about the scheme and potential future impacts. Not for any gloating purposes but just to see if there is a genuine 'grey' area for this. If so shouldn't the PFA be ensuring that they have clear advice themselves from the UK Govt over using the scheme in this way in order for them to communicate to their members? Also, potentially the SFA or the SPFL (not sure whose responsibility this sort of thing would sit with) could be looking at it for the clubs as a whole...

It may be one of the reasons a number of clubs down South and some up here were asking players to defer wages as opposed to using this scheme. The last thing clubs would need if they get through this would be a challenge to their use of the scheme and repayment of monies paid out.

Horrible decision to have to make but in these circumstances I think probably the wisest for the security of the club

On Sportsound on Saturday Lachlan Cameron said Ayr hadn't taken any professional advice but one of the Directors had read through the regulations and thought it seemed in line.

Given Dundee have three players affected and insurance cover anyway I doubt they care massively if it bounces back on them. Has any other club actually confirmed they are extending contracts yet?

Meanwhile Dunfermline and Ross County are both saying they've taken professional advice which cast doubt on the validity. I don't think there's any doubt this isn't a 'black or white' issue. It is a grey area and it will be one clubs will need to judge for themselves the risk over it being attacked and the exposure if it is, which will clearly be far greater the more players are involved.

30 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

QoTS still doing that thing where they don't communicate? I remember from last season SD saying they don't announce released players. Which personally sounds a bit mental. 

We haven't made club announcements of releases as such for over a decade though occasionally managers have made their own announcements. Gary Naysmith certainly did.

57 minutes ago, Mr X said:

But still doesnt say what this advice was or what the "risk" is.

Nor is he likely to. If he has obtained professional advice he'll have paid for it on a basis that it's provided on confidentially and not to be shared with 3rd parties I imagine.

Edited May 25, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Rob1885]

That's fair enough from RM. He should have had the foresight to stick something in about that on Friday's statement. Would have saved a lot of the flack that came the club's way. Still not entirely comfortable with it.

[EdinburghPar1975]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

On Sportsound on Saturday Lachlan Cameron said Ayr hadn't taken any professional advice but one of the Directors had read through the regulations and thought it seemed in line.

To be honest, that's what would worry me. I've seen it posted that the section (I think it's section 2.5) of the retention document is wildly open to interpretation and whilst it was put together quickly things like these need clarification for those using it. Given the amount of players impacted by this and the potential consequences for the clubs who don't have insurance or benefactors to bail them out if the funds need repaid, some centralised governing body needs to confirm what the govt/ HMRC think about trolling contracts where the players would likely be released when the scheme ends...

[Homer Thompson]

40 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

On Sportsound on Saturday Lachlan Cameron said Ayr hadn't taken any professional advice but one of the Directors had read through the regulations and thought it seemed in line.

Given Dundee have three players affected and insurance cover anyway I doubt they care massively if it bounces back on them. Has any other club actually confirmed they are extending contracts yet?

Meanwhile Dunfermline and Ross County are both saying they've taken professional advice which cast doubt on the validity. I don't think there's any doubt this isn't a 'black or white' issue. It is a grey area and it will be one clubs will need to judge for themselves the risk over it being attacked and the exposure if it is, which will clearly be far greater the more players are involved.

We haven't made club announcements of releases as such for over a decade though occasionally managers have made their own announcements. Gary Naysmith certainly did.

Nor is he likely to. If he has obtained professional advice he'll have paid for it on a basis that it's provided on confidentially and not to be shared with 3rd parties I imagine.

Im not expecting him to break any confidentiality, but Im sure he could have said what the perceived risks were without doing that

[DA Baracus]

51 minutes ago, Rob1885 said:

That's fair enough from RM. He should have had the foresight to stick something in about that on Friday's statement. Would have saved a lot of the flack that came the club's way. Still not entirely comfortable with it.

Agreed. Maybe it needed to be explained to the players properly too.

44 minutes ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

To be honest, that's what would worry me. I've seen it posted that the section (I think it's section 2.5) of the retention document is wildly open to interpretation and whilst it was put together quickly things like these need clarification for those using it. Given the amount of players impacted by this and the potential consequences for the clubs who don't have insurance or benefactors to bail them out if the funds need repaid, some centralised governing body needs to confirm what the govt/ HMRC think about trolling contracts where the players would likely be released when the scheme ends...

So sounds like it's a risk the club are not prepared to take. It might turn out that doing it is completely fine, but if it turns out that there's some financial consequences for it then the club would be fucked and so simply won't take the chance.

[Finlay21]

2 hours ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

To be honest, that's what would worry me. I've seen it posted that the section (I think it's section 2.5) of the retention document is wildly open to interpretation and whilst it was put together quickly things like these need clarification for those using it. Given the amount of players impacted by this and the potential consequences for the clubs who don't have insurance or benefactors to bail them out if the funds need repaid, some centralised governing body needs to confirm what the govt/ HMRC think about trolling contracts where the players would likely be released when the scheme ends...

On the Ayr matter , of the about 12 players it effects , I would expect at least 6/7 of them will have a new contract for next season at the club 

[Socks]

6 hours ago, Mr X said:

Im not expecting him to break any confidentiality, but Im sure he could have said what the perceived risks were without doing that

Do the perceived risks really need spelled out? Because it's not entirely certain whether extending contracts with no prospect of renewal after the scheme ends will be deemed as misuse, there is a risk that HMRC might be due the money back at a later date, maybe with penalties on top. It doesn't seem an especially difficult concept. How likely it is that HMRC will try to recover the money is difficult to say, but the probability is more than 0%.

[Guest Axle Grease]

Ross McArthur will do what he has to do to protect Dunfermline interests. 

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, Socks said:

Do the perceived risks really need spelled out? Because it's not entirely certain whether extending contracts with no prospect of renewal after the scheme ends will be deemed as misuse, there is a risk that HMRC might be due the money back at a later date, maybe with penalties on top. It doesn't seem an especially difficult concept. How likely it is that HMRC will try to recover the money is difficult to say, but the probability is more than 0%.

I know that or at least I, like you, am assuming that. 

As far as I know, no-one has actually said that. MacGregor described extending contracts as "dishonest". Of course he has no qualms about taking government money to cover wages that he could personally pay for several years out of his own pocket without even noticing 

Edited May 25, 2020 by Mr X

[Rovers_Lad]

2 hours ago, Socks said:

Do the perceived risks really need spelled out? Because it's not entirely certain whether extending contracts with no prospect of renewal after the scheme ends will be deemed as misuse, there is a risk that HMRC might be due the money back at a later date, maybe with penalties on top. It doesn't seem an especially difficult concept. How likely it is that HMRC will try to recover the money is difficult to say, but the probability is more than 0%.

Extending contracts with little or no prospect of renewal after the scheme ends being deemed as misuse may well be a difficult thing for HMRC to prove 

[DA Baracus]

40 minutes ago, Rovers_Lad said:

Extending contracts with little or no prospect of renewal after the scheme ends being deemed as misuse may well be a difficult thing for HMRC to prove 

Yes, but if there is a chance that it isn't, even a small chance, then it appears to be a chance the club cannot afford to risk.

[Rovers_Lad]

No doubt but i,d be surprised if a cash trapped clubs like mines were taking a risk however miniscule it is

[DAFC.]

Yes, but if there is a chance that it isn't, even a small chance, then it appears to be a chance the club cannot afford to risk.

And this is exactly why things have happened the way they have.

Let’s remember: these guys weren’t “let go” or “sacked”. They had a contract that ran out. We were under no obligation to extend it. Call us whatever you want, but that’s the facts. The club aren’t in a position to take any risks whatsoever, no matter how small, as DA said above.

[Stellaboz]

And imagine we did, then we'd be the mad, big spending idiots. To some, we can't win with this situation. It's horrific for those involved but really, why should the club put itself at risk? 

[Shandon Par]

Ross McArthur would have looked at all the facts available. The wording that contracts can be extended is very clear, but conversely, it does appear to be against the spirit of the scheme that you do this in the knowledge that they will not be acting as employees again. With the heavy burden of making the choice between helping these players out financially and potentially exposing the club to HMRC expenses further down the line, McArthur decided to make the obvious decision. That decision, is to say "f**k all that" and go with the thing that would most annoy the fans of the wee team. 

[ribzanelli]

Wasn’t it the case though that an employee who had handed in their notice and was due to move on could be rehired by the old employer - just to get them funding through this scheme? 

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, ribzanelli said:

Wasn’t it the case though that an employee who had handed in their notice and was due to move on could be rehired by the old employer - just to get them funding through this scheme? 

Read the last few pages