Club Licencing

[Hertz1874]

6 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Does a 40 week only contract allow for players to have enough paid holiday leave? Minimum wage rates are lower for under 25 players so the mix of your squad has an impact as well

What clubs are paying their players minimum wage to fit in with HMRC legislation? Because I know of 0.

I presume there ways around that?

[Ginaro]

5 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Thought of something else. I wonder when Civil Service Strollers and Vale of Leithen were audited. There last audit took place in December 2018 but would that have been before or after the licensing change? As it doesn't seem fair to turn up to CSS and Bonnyrigg on the same day and say you're audited by the 2018 criteria and your audited by the 2019 criteria.

That column says the "last licensing committee review" so wouldn't that be the date that the committee met, rather than the actual audit which would take place before that?

[Cowden Cowboy]

What clubs are paying their players minimum wage to fit in with HMRC legislation? Because I know of 0.
I presume there ways around that?

Every SPFL club will be meeting that as a minimum now I would anticipate. Ways round it - play amateurs.

[FairWeatherFan]

8 hours ago, Ginaro said:

That column says the "last licensing committee review" so wouldn't that be the date that the committee met, rather than the actual audit which would take place before that?

Dunno how it works exactly. Of the new applicants I think some of them were audited in December. Passed licensing committee in February and got their license in May. So when would they next be due an audit?

[8MileBU]

From my experience, due to knowing people who deal with such issues at Dundee City Council, I know that over here grants are only provided to any sports club based on specific projects. One such example is an initiative to get youth from a vulnerable background to play rugby where they usually wouldn't be able to afford that, with the added aim to keep certain people occupied in the hope this prevents criminality. The rugby club gets a grant for co-operating with the Council on this initiative. However, they are only allowed to use the money on costs relating to the project (for example, coaching, kits etc. for these youth players). They have to justify what they spend the money on and can't just spend it on improving their ground or investing in their first team. There are similar rules around projects/grants in other sports.
Councils in Scotland are not exactly rich nowadays, they simply can't afford to just throw money around. Especially if for example the rugby club gets an unconditional grant, the local hockey & cricket clubs would expect the same. If then Lochee United (for example) also get money, Dundee North End, Broughty Athletic and so on would expect the same again. That's simply not possible, which is why any grants are tied to specific projects and nothing else. I know this is just Dundee I'm talking about and other councils could be different, but I highly doubt it's much different elsewhere in Scotland.

I think you’re right for the most part, but sure I read that Jeanfield Swifts got a handout for floodlights from P&K Council.

[superbigal]

What clubs are paying their players minimum wage to fit in with HMRC legislation? Because I know of 0. I presume there ways around that? 

 

Actually proving your paying minimum wage should make it onto the licensing requirements.If minimum wage rules were followed closely I believe wages would be over well over £50 a week for the qualifying hours most players (that are on appropriate contract) put in. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Marten]

21 minutes ago, 8MileBU said:

 

I think you’re right for the most part, but sure I read that Jeanfield Swifts got a handout for floodlights from P&K Council.

 

They have received a "physical donation", so not money to buy something. I can only assume the council had something that was used for one of their own sporting facilities and they didn't need anymore.

[MDM]

17 hours ago, virginton said:

Erm the SFA just appointed a new chief executive with an extensive background in Scottish football: he's fucking useless though. 

I didn't say they needed an extensive background in Scottish football - I said "....people who genuinely have the good of Scottish football at heart and as a priority."

[Cumbo]

They have received a "physical donation", so not money to buy something. I can only assume the council had something that was used for one of their own sporting facilities and they didn't need anymore.

That's correct. There is a disused ball court opposite the ground from which we have received the lights.

[Sidney Lumet]

18 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

Filling out forms is hardly blood sweat and tears.

Grants being obtained not because of football prowess but purely because clubs tick the right boxes in a modern Snowflake Society.  You have to wonder where these clubs would actually be without artificial funding (not self generated) 

Whilst other Clubs spend their own money to enhance their own park - built up through years of toil.  Days like yesterday must make them wonder why bother.  It's hardly a level playing field - and questionable if footballing ability actually matters anymore.

What a horrible auld gobshite. Embellishing your own club's off field achievements by denigrating the achievements of others. It's like the Old Firm for beginners.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Sidney Lumet

[lithgierose]

6 minutes ago, Sidney Lumet said:

What a horrible auld gobshite. Embellishing your own club's off field achievements by denigrating the achievements of others. It's like the Old Firm for beginners.

Don't think the form filling he is talking about,is regarding his football team.

[Sidney Lumet]

1 minute ago, lithgierose said:

Don't think the form filling he is talking about,is regarding his football team.

I think he is saying that certain clubs achieved what they have ground improvement wise by simply filling out a form or two and hey presto, job done while his own team have had to improve their ground by putting in the hard work all by themselves - an over simplification that almost certainly isn't the whole picture for these other clubs and denigrates their efforts in a condescending way.

[Ginaro]

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Dunno how it works exactly. Of the new applicants I think some of them were audited in December. Passed licensing committee in February and got their license in May. So when would they next be due an audit?

Sometime before Feb 2020 so they can be reviewed by the licensing committee that month? That seems to be how it works comparing the list of licensed clubs to the previous list, the committee meets in Feb/Apr (Premiership only?)/May/Aug/Oct/Dec, though for some clubs it can be 9 months or 14 months for their next review.

[boheesian]

18 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

Sport is ultimately about winning (achievements) not just taking part.   As I said my comments on Grants go beyond football - not naming individual clubs - how they operate is ultimately up to them.  

 

 

Why won’t you name the Clubs? It’s obvious this ability for organisations/trusts/clubs etc can receive funding from various sources sticks in your craw. So can I suggest you put up or shut up.

These grants are available if you do all your research and put in time to speak to the right people of course spending hard earned money in the process. Most of these projects are for the benefit of the community.

Has your Club not benefited from any grants?

 

[Burnie_man]

Going back to Licence processes, from my reading of the manual it is the Licence Committee who should be making all decision on whether clubs comply and if they don’t, whether their application for derogation will be granted.  If they grant derogation then it is passed to the SFA Board with their recommendation to approve.  If they don't grant it, it doesn't even get to the SFA Board.

They abdicated on that responsibility and passed it to the SFA Board instead, maybe they have never dealt with derogation applications previously and didn’t fancy it?

Here’s the crux, had the LC made the decision to reject derogation you have a process to appeal it.  If the SFA Board reject it, then I don’t think there is any process to appeal their decisions.   However, due process does not appear to have been properly followed, should the SFA Board have been making the decision in the first place?

This is where legal advice is required.  If the SFA have ignored due process then they open themselves up to a challenge.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Burnie_man

[Hertz1874]

3 hours ago, superbigal said:

Actually proving your paying minimum wage should make it onto the licensing requirements.If minimum wage rules were followed closely I believe wages would be over well over £50 a week for the qualifying hours most players (that are on appropriate contract) put in. 

 

 

 

 

 

Teams can't afford it, you would be paid from the moment you leave the house until you return. Then expenses, its just not viable for most.

[superbigal]

50 minutes ago, Hertz1874 said:

Teams can't afford it, you would be paid from the moment you leave the house until you return. Then expenses, its just not viable for most.

Minimum Wage is the LAW.  HMRC will enforce the law if someone reports a lawbreaker.

If football teams are in breach of the law eventually they will be named and shamed like many companies are.

Three Scottish football clubs are among the latest on a “name and shame” list of companies who have failed to pay their employees the minimum wage.

Motherwell, Greenock Morton and Falkirk football clubs are among 28 businesses on a list of 260 across the UK who are being forced to repay unpaid wages.

Motherwell FC, failed to pay £2,755.34 to 12 workers.

Greenock Morton FC, failed to pay £2,382.46 to 6 workers.

Falkirk Football FC,  failed to pay £494.51 to 1 worker.

If all the new licensed clubs want the benefits the license brings then they at least should show an example and not break the law.

Clearly they all might be paying correctly ? Through my own experience of being paid by a junior team.  It was all done perfectly legit as a second job via PAYE. However it certainly was not paying minimum wage for the qualified hours.  I had no beef with this as it was purely recreational for me.

Edited May 9, 2019 by superbigal

[The Mantis]

57 minutes ago, Hertz1874 said:

Teams can't afford it, you would be paid from the moment you leave the house until you return. Then expenses, its just not viable for most.

I've been asking the question for a couple of years, since I was involved at Whitehill. You can either sign players on a professional contract and pay the minimum wage, or you can sign them on amateur contracts and give them some expenses.

Some of the bigger clubs can afford this £60k a year or whatever. Smaller clubs can pay a few hundred per player on expenses. But many clubs were previously paying somewhere in the middle, and I can't see how you can legally do this now.

[gaz5]

Teams can't afford it, you would be paid from the moment you leave the house until you return. Then expenses, its just not viable for most.

Not quite.

You don't get paid traveling time to get to your work unless it's to a location other than your primary workplace for that job.

Travel time to and from training and to and from home games doesn't legally count as paid hours.

The national minimum wage is also different depending on age, so it's not uniform across a squad.

There's also the (perfectly legal) ability to pay up to 45p per mile per week in expenses without paying any "wage".

For some players, if travelling a relatively small distance, the expense entitlement can be more than minimum wage entitlement after tax so it makes more sense to pay expenses only.

Legal entitlement to expenses can also be more than the money some teams could afford to pay individuals as well, meaning non taxable (legitimate, but you have to track and amend payments when sessions missed) expenses are the better option.

For example, a 23 year old who lives 15 miles from the home ground/training park would be entitled to 90*45p per week, (plus an average of travel distance to away games over the league season, which increases that, but we'll ignore for this example).

That player would be entitled to a maximum of £41 in expenses per week by HMRC guidelines. Minimum wage for their age would be around £53.90 per week, but that is liable to tax and NI which would reduce that to roughly £39.35 at 20% tax code. Expenses is non taxable (as actually incurred) so expenses the better option.

The calculation is different for every player, and for many clubs they would likely have a budget that means most players can't be offered more than maximum expenses entitlement anyway.

I would wager that most clubs have a mix of amateur/non contract players on legit expenses and professional players on wages where they command more than what could legitimately be paid as expenses.

It's not quite as simple as £x per week minimum wage X 20 across a squad to work out a budget.

[Ginaro]

One thing I'm curious about - is why it's taken so long to get to this point for the clubs without lights. 

I'm assuming Bonnyrigg, Haddington, etc. asked the licensing committee at their audit or the SFA later on: "are you going to give us a derogation or is there any point in continuing this process without floodlights?". So who is it that has strung these clubs along for months knowing that no lights means application rejected - the licensing committee, SFA Board, Maxwell, Petrie (or did the clubs mess up)?

Edited May 9, 2019 by Ginaro