Jump to content
Parscelona

Walking Down The Halbeath Road

Recommended Posts

Been reading up on your badge, mainly because I'm a sad b*****d, but it's a badge I've always liked.
What was it before an art teacher had his nightmare and came up with it?


I imagine we didn’t have one. Or maybe used the Dunfermline coat of arms. I think it’s a common misconception that football clubs had badges as we know them from the off. Maybe they had symbols or the like but you don’t see badges, especially on football kits until the 50s really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure they just used the club's initials in place of a badge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/scottish-championship/1328024/ross-mcarthur-dunfermline-furlough-contracts/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"

McArthur has revealed the East End Park outfit received different advice.

He said: “Early on, I had looked at that and if there was a way of helping the boys and their families we would have looked at that.

“But the advice we got, the professional advice we went to from two different sources, was that it’s not the right thing to do.

“There are issues potentially attached to that. What we are conscious of is doing things by the book and we don’t want to expose the business to risk."

 

 

Edited by Grant228

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/scottish-championship/1328024/ross-mcarthur-dunfermline-furlough-contracts/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

"

McArthur has revealed the East End Park outfit received different advice.

He said: “Early on, I had looked at that and if there was a way of helping the boys and their families we would have looked at that.

“But the advice we got, the professional advice we went to from two different sources, was that it’s not the right thing to do.

“There are issues potentially attached to that. What we are conscious of is doing things by the book and we don’t want to expose the business to risk."

 

 

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

Edited by Mr X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/05/2020 at 11:08, Mr. Alli said:

He's had advice from HMRC but doesn't say what that advice was, nor what would happen but if there was a government scheme available to help the players he'd use that. 

There is a government scheme available. His nonsense about people getting paid whilst others sit at home is bullshit too, that is literally happening country wide. 

Considering, as you point out, he pumps millions into the club and then writes it off on a yearly basis then taking this course of action and branding an extra month's furlough 'dishonest' is fucking laughable. 

He’s a fucking arsehole. His whole business plan is mental. 

Edit - Spunks other companies money on making sure they finish above The Caley every season by offering our players 200 a week more to come and play for him. On crowds barely over 3000.

Edited by TheScarf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by EdinburghPar1975
posts before may have thought i was referring to Ross County...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Skyline Drifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...