Walking Down The Halbeath Road

[da_no_1]

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. 

Have to say I was surprised reading DAs post and quite glad it's not true. Adds a bit of meat to the bones of our decision

[DA Baracus]

I thought that the SPFL had advised Ayr and Dundee to do it. Sure I read it on here.

Sounds like I was wrong.

[Ludo*1]

Dundee's statement said they did:

'The club have also taken the decision to extend the contracts of all the professional players who are out of contract next month. Through advice from the SPFL the club have offered short term extensions through the end of June to these players and will review the situation and make further decisions at that time based on the information available.'

https://dundeefc.co.uk/news/christies-contract-extended/

[Skyline Drifter]

4 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Dundee's statement said they did:

'The club have also taken the decision to extend the contracts of all the professional players who are out of contract next month. Through advice from the SPFL the club have offered short term extensions through the end of June to these players and will review the situation and make further decisions at that time based on the information available.'

https://dundeefc.co.uk/news/christies-contract-extended/

You're misreading that. The advice from the SPFL would have been on how to contract the players for a short term month on a furlough contract, not on whether they should actually do it.

I think it's also worth remembering Dundee are a bit of an outlier here. They are the one club at this level with some form of insurance covering losses from being unable to trade and they are actually only talking about three players not the bulk of a squad. The risks for them if the scheme is challenged are much lower than for everyone else.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

You're misreading that. The advice from the SPFL would have been on how to contract the players for a short term month on a furlough contract, not on whether they should actually do it.

Fair enough.

I'm not asking this as a loaded question, with genuine curiosity, why do you think Dunfermline and apparently QotS are not going down this route as well?

[Finlay21]

40 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Mine did

 

"While you are furloughed you cannot undertake any paid work from another employer but you can however engage in voluntary work."

Yes you can , you just can’t work during the hours you normally work , and can work for another employer , I know quite a number of people going it , even one of Ross County coaches is doing it driving a home shopping van for Asda 

 

Can I work for anyone else while I’m furloughed?

Furloughed employees may be able to work for another employer, providing it does not breach their contractual obligations with their current employer.

Individuals should only work outside of the hours they would normally work in their usual job.

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, 101 said:

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.

From the beginning the furlough scheme was being encouraged by the Gov to be used by employers who would otherwise be making employees redundant, for the life of me i don't see how an unemployed jobber footballer is any different from an unemployed Baker or Shop Assistant or any other trade at the moment.

There was even a law change to permit recently unemployed workers to be re-contracted by their old employers in order to give them a lifeline, so again I'm not seeing how football clubs are doing anything wrong by extending the contracts of current players so as they stay eligible for the furlough scheme, in fact, is this not what the Government actually want ???

[Chubbychops]

4 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

From the beginning the furlough scheme was being encouraged by the Gov to be used by employers who would otherwise be making employees redundant, for the life of me i don't see how an unemployed jobber footballer is any different from an unemployed Baker or Shop Assistant or any other trade at the moment.

There was even a law change to permit recently unemployed workers to be re-contracted by their old employers in order to give them a lifeline, so again I'm not seeing how football clubs are doing anything wrong by extending the contracts of current players so as they stay eligible for the furlough scheme, in fact, is this not what the Government actually want ???

Most if not all would've been released though. Giving these guys 3 months furlough then releasing them when it suits is abusing tax payers money. The Government are trying to protect jobs that would've existed without Covid.

[ribzanelli]

2 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Most if not all would've been released though. Giving these guys 3 months furlough then releasing them when it suits is abusing tax payers money. The Government are trying to protect jobs that would've existed without Covid.

It would protect jobs though, at their next club. Making them unemployed is also going to make them reliant on tax payer money

[Chubbychops]

3 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

It would protect jobs though, at their next club. Making them unemployed is also going to make them reliant on tax payer money

Roy McGregor has taken advice  from HMRC and legal advice  on this and has been adivsed not do it.  The abuse of the furlough system may have financial consequences further down the line. McArthur is taking no risks with the clubs existence.

[ribzanelli]

4 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Roy McGregor has taken advice  from HMRC and legal advice  on this and has been adivsed not do it.  The abuse of the furlough system may have financial consequences further down the line. McArthur is taking no risks with the clubs existence.

Yeah it certainly seems a grey area right now but with the information currently in the public domain it is fairly easy to counter any of the reasons put forward in defence of DAFC. Hopefully be some clarification from them in due course.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Most if not all would've been released though. Giving these guys 3 months furlough then releasing them when it suits is abusing tax payers money. The Government are trying to protect jobs that would've existed without Covid.

It's widely acknowledged in the Business community that the furlough scheme is the sole reason that many companies are still trading, once this lifeline is removed then there will be lots going under that would already have been gone if it weren't for the covid crisis / furlough scheme and associated grants and cheap loans actually saving them.

I do get what you're saying but I don't think extending the contracts of a few lower league footballers by a month or two is any different from companies actively being encouraged to re-employ colleagues who had already been let go, in fact I'd say the latter is much more blatant.

[101]

1 hour ago, WATTOO said:

From the beginning the furlough scheme was being encouraged by the Gov to be used by employers who would otherwise be making employees redundant, for the life of me i don't see how an unemployed jobber footballer is any different from an unemployed Baker or Shop Assistant or any other trade at the moment.

There was even a law change to permit recently unemployed workers to be re-contracted by their old employers in order to give them a lifeline, so again I'm not seeing how football clubs are doing anything wrong by extending the contracts of current players so as they stay eligible for the furlough scheme, in fact, is this not what the Government actually want ???

 

36 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

It's widely acknowledged in the Business community that the furlough scheme is the sole reason that many companies are still trading, once this lifeline is removed then there will be lots going under that would already have been gone if it weren't for the covid crisis / furlough scheme and associated grants and cheap loans actually saving them.

I do get what you're saying but I don't think extending the contracts of a few lower league footballers by a month or two is any different from companies actively being encouraged to re-employ colleagues who had already been let go, in fact I'd say the latter is much more blatant.

The reason many people had been made unemployed after the scheme was introduced was because the scheme was late arriving.

Footballers are being extended are no risk to the clubs, I think clubs should either be releasing players in the summer or contracting them all the way through to January. I don't think it's a proper use of public funds to contract people who would have been released and the business isn't taking any risk.

Very few companies have a churn of staff like this once a year and we should be asking why the benefits system is sub standard, many businesses are going to the wall despite government support and employees in these companies will be claiming UC soon, I think it's perfectly reasonable for a company to release staff who came to the natural end of their contract in order to protect the business and the extensive employment this creates.

[Poet of the Macabre]

10 hours ago, Rob1885 said:

10 hours ago, Poet of the Macabre said:

Folk who had zero problem with this until Amy MacDonald complained now wringing their hands and painting up the protest signs.
Welp.

Nah I made my position clear about this weeks ago. Clubs got it wrong, I realise its difficult to accept for many.

I certainly don’t think they have. The club kept to the terms of the contract and I’d do the same thing in their shoes.

The moral argument is entirely subjective . I have sympathy for the players who have been released but no more or less than I have sympathy for thousands of people who have lost their jobs during this crisis. 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Poet of the Macabre

[da_no_1]

I certainly don’t think they have. The club kept to the terms of the contract and I’d do the same thing in their shoes.
The moral argument is entirely subjective . I have sympathy for the players who have been released but no more or less than I have sympathy for thousands of people who have lost their jobs during this crisis. 

The first team players have played at a pretty decent level throughout their careers. They should have had enough put away to cope with the situation the clubs decision has put them in.

[Rudolph Hucker]

9 minutes ago, da_no_1 said:

The first team players have played at a pretty decent level throughout their careers. They should have had enough put away to cope with the situation the clubs decision has put them in.

Yep, if the didn’t foresee the possibility of being left jobless at the time when the worst pandemic in a century would make it all but impossible to get a contract with another club for maybe months to come then hell mend them.

.......that IS basically what you’re saying here, isn’t it?

[da_no_1]

Yep, if the didn’t foresee the possibility of being left jobless at the time when the worst pandemic in a century would make it all but impossible to get a contract with another club for maybe months to come then hell mend them.

[emoji15].......that IS basically what you’re saying here, isn’t it?

No of course not. I'm talking about the difference between us not offering short term contracts and Ayr and Dundee doing just that then dumping the majority of them in July.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Just now, da_no_1 said:

7 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

Yep, if the didn’t foresee the possibility of being left jobless at the time when the worst pandemic in a century would make it all but impossible to get a contract with another club for maybe months to come then hell mend them.
.......that IS basically what you’re saying here, isn’t it?

No of course not. I'm talking to the difference between us not offering short term contracts and Ayr and Dundee doing just that then dumping the majority of them in July.

.......which they may indeed do. Or they may keep them on under whatever revised furlough scheme comes into play. If that will be allowable, of course.

But even if they were unable to do that, they players would still have had money coming in for six weeks or so more than the freed Dunfermline guys. I really struggle to see what you have against that, and why you continue to try to defend what, for the moment at least, appears to be entirely indefensible.

[da_no_1]

.......which they may indeed do. Or they may keep them on under whatever revised furlough scheme comes into play. If that will be allowable, of course.
But even if they were unable to do that, they players would still have had money coming in for six weeks or so more than the freed Dunfermline guys. I really struggle to see what you have against that, and why you continue to try to defend what, for the moment at least, appears to be entirely indefensible.

Because I still can't see why we wouldn't do it if it wasn't without risk. If the rumours are true HMRC might come calling further down the line. We have no overdraft facilities, no sugar daddy and no vision regarding future income apart from the 20k/month lifeline which will probably already be needed for stadium maintenance etc. We're just not in a position to gamble.

That's all assuming the HMRC story is true.

[Dee Bliss]

10 minutes ago, da_no_1 said:

16 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

Yep, if the didn’t foresee the possibility of being left jobless at the time when the worst pandemic in a century would make it all but impossible to get a contract with another club for maybe months to come then hell mend them.
.......that IS basically what you’re saying here, isn’t it?

No of course not. I'm talking to the difference between us not offering short term contracts and Ayr and Dundee doing just that then dumping the majority of them in July.

Are you criticising Dundee and Ayr for this? The decent thing to do was to furlough the players, end of.