Jump to content
Parscelona

Walking Down The Halbeath Road

Recommended Posts

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 by Mr X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes 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? 

Yes. Numerous people even started new employment and worked about a fortnight before having to be 'let go' to go back to their last employers payroll and be paid by them despite already leaving and will never be doing a day's work for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

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.

 

47 minutes ago, DAFC. said:

 


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.

 

Its unrelated to this decision, but the thought that a business should never take a risk is absurd. Businesses spend their entire lives assessing and taking risks, football clubs even more so. Every time you sack a manager, its a risk. Every time you hire a new manager, or player. Every time you release new merchandise, even every game you play carries some element of risk.

 

20 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

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. 

I dont have an issue with the logic of that. I do question, though, where this idea of being against "the spirit" of the scheme came from. As others have pointed out the scheme is being used in other, similar, ways that you could argue are against "the spirit". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours 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 

Exactly this.

If a club hadn't already said publicly that certain players were definitely going to be freed at the end of the season there would be no risk in extending their contracts and keeping them furloughed. They could even be thought  of as keeping their options open as nobody can say what the available  market for players at their level will be like when the season is eventually given a start date, and there's no way that HMRC will be looking to do a forensic examination of each player's performance last season in order to judge how likely it would be that the player would have been kept on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr X said:

 

Its unrelated to this decision, but the thought that a business should never take a risk is absurd. Businesses spend their entire lives assessing and taking risks, football clubs even more so. Every time you sack a manager, its a risk. Every time you hire a new manager, or player. Every time you release new merchandise, even every game you play carries some element of risk.

It's unrelated, irrelevant and quite frankly your tone is condescending here.  Considering the recent history of our club, the decision by Ross McArthur is sensible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mr X said:

 

Its unrelated to this decision, but the thought that a business should never take a risk is absurd. Businesses spend their entire lives assessing and taking risks, football clubs even more so. Every time you sack a manager, its a risk. Every time you hire a new manager, or player. Every time you release new merchandise, even every game you play carries some element of risk.

 

I dont have an issue with the logic of that. I do question, though, where this idea of being against "the spirit" of the scheme came from. As others have pointed out the scheme is being used in other, similar, ways that you could argue are against "the spirit". 

I'm unsure who said businesses should never take a risk.

Agree about the stuff regarding the 'spirit' of the scheme. It's nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stellaboz said:

It's unrelated, irrelevant and quite frankly your tone is condescending here.  Considering the recent history of our club, the decision by Ross McArthur is sensible. 

As I said, the point wasnt related to this decision. It was relevant, though, given the posts it was related to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I'm unsure who said businesses should never take a risk.

Agree about the stuff regarding the 'spirit' of the scheme. It's nonsense.

DAFC did - I quoted his post! To be fair, your post that I quoted didnt say "never" but not taking small chances is in the same ball park

Edited by Mr X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr X said:

DAFC did - I quoted his post! To be fair, your post that I quoted didnt say "never" but thats how I read it

He said the club, not businesses, and it's clear to me he was meaning financial risks.

Yea, you'll probably argue that appointing a new manager is a financial risk, but that's budgeted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Mr X said:

 

Its unrelated to this decision, but the thought that a business should never take a risk is absurd. Businesses spend their entire lives assessing and taking risks, football clubs even more so. Every time you sack a manager, its a risk. Every time you hire a new manager, or player. Every time you release new merchandise, even every game you play carries some element of risk.

 

I dont have an issue with the logic of that. I do question, though, where this idea of being against "the spirit" of the scheme came from. As others have pointed out the scheme is being used in other, similar, ways that you could argue are against "the spirit". 

It makes reference to "when the employee returns to work". There's no prospect of the employees returning to work.. Wee things like that. I'm sure HMRC won't come calling afterwards but McArthur is just protecting the club just on that off-chance that somewhere down the line HMRC starts taking issue with some claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

He said the club, not businesses, and it's clear to me he was meaning financial risks.

Yea, you'll probably argue that appointing a new manager is a financial risk, but that's budgeted for.

Shirley, its the business not the club who takes the financial risks?

Of course appointing a manager is a financial risk. Its budgeted for but if you appoint the wrong one what do you do? Spend more money to sack them or lose money with lower crowds and prize money, or being relegated?

14 minutes ago, Shandon Par said:

It makes reference to "when the employee returns to work". There's no prospect of the employees returning to work.. Wee things like that. I'm sure HMRC won't come calling afterwards but McArthur is just protecting the club just on that off-chance that somewhere down the line HMRC starts taking issue with some claims. 

I havent seen that reference.

There is no prospect of them returning to work. Theres also no prospect of employees on fixed contracts, that had already ended, returning to work but they are also covered under furlough.

ETA - its phrases like "off-chance" that Im questioning here. If every decision was made on the "off-chance" of something going wrong no one would ever do anything.

Im clinging to the hope that the clubs who've made this decision have reasons more concrete than an "off-chance". I just dont know what it is

Edited by Mr X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reminder that most people only care about this because Amy MacDonald was upset that Ricky Foster would be getting released by Ross County.

Upset that football clubs were honouring contracts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...