Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Homer Thompson]

2 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

That might be a shite move.

Or perhaps the manager wanted to tell the players so asked to be able to do it and you're twisting it to make out that he was forced to do it. The manager will know the players and have a closer relationship with them than the chairman.

No idea either way. And neither do you. If it is as you say then it's very poor indeed and questions about the chairman's position need to be asked.

This isn't a defence of the decision to not extend the contracts and furlough the players though. That needs to be explained as soon as possible. It's looking really bad and, worse, is a shite way to treat the players. If there's no reasonable explanation for not doing it then questions need to be asked about the chairman and board's positions. 

No, I have no idea. But it would be boring around here if we assumed the best all the time  

1 hour ago, Shadow Play said:

 

 I fully appreciate where you are coming from and I’m not looking to get into a wider debate.  My reply was to DA with regards to players being given a short term extension.  DA stated:  “This is one of the things the furlough scheme was set up for”. 

 I didn’t think the furlough scheme was designed to pay players, or any employee for that matter, who has had their contract extended simply to use the furlough scheme.  Particularly where the employer will simply drop the player / employee the moment the furlough scheme costs the club / employer a percentage of the payment.

It is quite possible I have misread and / or misunderstood the furlough scheme 
 

 

From the gov guidance - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If you’re on a fixed term contract

If you were on a fixed term contract your employer can re-employ, furlough and claim for you if your contract expired on or after either:

28 February 2020 and an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 28 February 2020

19 March 2020 and an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 19 March 2020

If your fixed term contract has not already expired, your employer can extend or renew it. Your employer can claim for you if an RTI payment submission for you was notified to HMRC on or before 19 March 2020.

If you started and ended the same contract between 28 February 2020 and 19 March 2020 you will not qualify for this scheme. This is not specific to employees on fixed-term contracts, the same would apply to employees on all other contracts.

---

that seems pretty clear that clubs could extend the contracts of players. Obviously, certain clubs are getting different legal advice

[Homer Thompson]

9 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

What about when the Government’s contribution to the furlough scheme is tapered and only covers a percentage of the furlough payment?  Should a club continue to pay their share of the player’s furlough payment even though they know they will not be keeping them on once the furlough scheme finally ends?  
 

Thats a different decision for a different situation which we havent reached yet

[SueSue]

33 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

What about when the Government’s contribution to the furlough scheme is tapered and only covers a percentage of the furlough payment?  Should a club continue to pay their share of the player’s furlough payment even though they know they will not be keeping them on once the furlough scheme finally ends?  

[SueSue]

Just now, SueSue said:

35 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

What about when the Government’s contribution to the furlough scheme is tapered and only covers a percentage of the furlough payment?  Should a club continue to pay their share of the player’s furlough payment even though they know they will not be keeping them on once the furlough scheme finally ends?  

By that time football clubs could be building a squad back up giving players a bit of a chance to find a club. 
We are talking about the here and now

 

[Socks]

I'm really not sure why some deem it classless to bring your manager back to work to be involved in giving the bad news to the players. It's obvioulsy a crap job for anyone to do but, if you have to be given bad news in a work-related context, getting it from your immediate manager who you know and have developed a working relationship with over the last year is surely more appropriate than getting it from a director who you maybe see on a home match day and hardly any other time. Sorry, don't understand that criticism at all.

On the issue of doing it at all, the ethics of it are difficult and it's not black and white. On one side, it's horrible for players to end up out of work with no prospect of finding another club soon, especially when there was a way of postponing that. On the other side, retaining players you'd otherwise let go on one-month contracts certainly seems to go against the spirit of the furlough scheme, whether or not it would constitute an abuse in law as per the quoted section above. Its intent was to keep people employed  rather than have mass redundancies and ensure there were jobs for people to go back to, therefore, if you use it keep people who have no realistic prospect of a job once the scheme ends, that too is ethically dubious.

[Granny Danger]

52 minutes ago, Socks said:

I'm really not sure why some deem it classless to bring your manager back to work to be involved in giving the bad news to the players. It's obvioulsy a crap job for anyone to do but, if you have to be given bad news in a work-related context, getting it from your immediate manager who you know and have developed a working relationship with over the last year is surely more appropriate than getting it from a director who you maybe see on a home match day and hardly any other time. Sorry, don't understand that criticism at all.

On the issue of doing it at all, the ethics of it are difficult and it's not black and white. On one side, it's horrible for players to end up out of work with no prospect of finding another club soon, especially when there was a way of postponing that. On the other side, retaining players you'd otherwise let go on one-month contracts certainly seems to go against the spirit of the furlough scheme, whether or not it would constitute an abuse in law as per the quoted section above. Its intent was to keep people employed  rather than have mass redundancies and ensure there were jobs for people to go back to, therefore, if you use it keep people who have no realistic prospect of a job once the scheme ends, that too is ethically dubious.

Aye, the black and white are not very ethical.

[RandomGuy.]

1 hour ago, Mr X said:

that seems pretty clear that clubs could extend the contracts of players. Obviously, certain clubs are getting different legal advice

BBC article with Tom Beadling maybe clears up what the likes of Dunfermline/QOS are getting told.

[Guest Flash]

18 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

BBC article with Tom Beadling maybe clears up what the likes of Dunfermline/QOS are getting told.

Rather than clubs all taking individual advice, it would make sense for the SPFL to contact HMRC for clarification. 

[ribzanelli]

1 hour ago, Socks said:

On the issue of doing it at all, the ethics of it are difficult and it's not black and white. On one side, it's horrible for players to end up out of work with no prospect of finding another club soon, especially when there was a way of postponing that. On the other side, retaining players you'd otherwise let go on one-month contracts certainly seems to go against the spirit of the furlough scheme, whether or not it would constitute an abuse in law as per the quoted section above. Its intent was to keep people employed  rather than have mass redundancies and ensure there were jobs for people to go back to, therefore, if you use it keep people who have no realistic prospect of a job once the scheme ends, that too is ethically dubious.

People who had handed in their notice or been given notice were eligible to be rehired just to get them on the furlough scheme even though they were never going to work another hour for that company again

[ribzanelli]

1 hour ago, Socks said:

I'm really not sure why some deem it classless to bring your manager back to work to be involved in giving the bad news to the players. It's obvioulsy a crap job for anyone to do but, if you have to be given bad news in a work-related context, getting it from your immediate manager who you know and have developed a working relationship with over the last year is surely more appropriate than getting it from a director who you maybe see on a home match day and hardly any other time. Sorry, don't understand that criticism at all.

It’s not classless but seems bizarre to take a manager off furlough and be on the hook for 100% of his wages just to tell players they are being let go as a cost cutting measure

[Shadow Play]

7 minutes ago, Flash said:

Rather than clubs all taking individual advice, it would make sense for the SPFL to contact HMRC for clarification. 

100% correct. Best post of this thread.

The only problem is, would that not require the SPFL to show some foresight and leadership?

[parsforlife]

1 minute ago, ribzanelli said:

It’s not classless but seems bizarre to take a manager off furlough and be on the hook for 100% of his wages just to tell players they are being let go as a cost cutting measure

I don’t think it’s particularly classless or classy tbh.  It’s quite common for line managers to be asked to deliver bad news.   

I’m not sure here but I think you can turn on and off furlough. Many companies are rotating staff for example.  So it’s not like we’re taking on his wages permanently again.

[ribzanelli]

Think furlough is a 3 week minimum tho so just a bit weird. Pretty sure you can speak to employees without necessarily ‘breaking’ furlough. 

[Derry Alli]

16 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

1) I'm not sure here but I think you can turn on and off furlough. Many companies are rotating staff for example.  

2) So it’s not like we’re taking on his wages permanently again.

1) No, you can't. You have to do at least 3 weeks. 

2) Yes, you are - and if he has been taken back early from his 3 weeks - you'll be paying all that back too. ( @Flash)

I was under the impression it was any time early although that might just be an agreement in my work. 

[Socks]

20 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

People who had handed in their notice or been given notice were eligible to be rehired just to get them on the furlough scheme even though they were never going to work another hour for that company again

I'm sure that has indeed happened, but only really backs up my point about the kind of thing we're discussing being ethically dubious. The kind of things you're on about are more extreme examples than player contracts being extended, but if someone has already handed in their notice then it's blatant abuse. Surely we're not saying that kind of behaviour is OK?

[Homer Thompson]

4 minutes ago, Socks said:

I'm sure that has indeed happened, but only really backs up my point about the kind of thing we're discussing being ethically dubious. The kind of things you're on about are more extreme examples than player contracts being extended, but if someone has already handed in their notice then it's blatant abuse. Surely we're not saying that kind of behaviour is OK?

Of course its ok. Generally people hand in their notice because they have another job to go to. If that job is then removed because of the pandemic, their previous employers have been allowed to re-hire them and put them on furlough.

[ribzanelli]

5 minutes ago, Socks said:

I'm sure that has indeed happened, but only really backs up my point about the kind of thing we're discussing being ethically dubious. The kind of things you're on about are more extreme examples than player contracts being extended, but if someone has already handed in their notice then it's blatant abuse. Surely we're not saying that kind of behaviour is OK?

I’m pretty sure the government clarified this was ok so don’t see why a football club can’t extend an employee who they have no need for just to get them through this but a ‘regular’ employer can? This cheating the public purse narrative is a smokescreen, those now unemployed will now be supported by the state, only via an alternative mechanism.

[rb123!]

Paul Paton and Amy MacDonald love the Ayr

[Socks]

15 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Of course its ok. Generally people hand in their notice because they have another job to go to. If that job is then removed because of the pandemic, their previous employers have been allowed to re-hire them and put them on furlough.

I take your point, but still don't really feel comfortable with it being used in those circumstances. If people are re-hired without any prospect of working in the same place when the scheme ends, then it isn't really a job retention scheme at all.

I'm not arguing especially hard in either direction - I genuinely think it's a really tough one for all clubs and I'm pulled both ways by what the 'least wrong' thing to do is. It'll be interesting to find out this week what the other clubs decide to do.

[vikingTON]

Yeah I can't see Morton keeping on players right now that they have no intention of playing next season and nor should they. Our casualty list might not be that high as I can't see Hopkin having a clearout but in most recent seasons there'd have been a dozen first team players out the door by now anyway.