Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[da_no_1]

I don't care who runs Ross County, so no.
I completely disagree with him too. This is one of the things the furlough scheme was set up for. 

I guarantee you it wasn't designed with well paid football players in mind.

It's already been said on here that one of ours turned down a contract offered to him. Where do you stand on that?

[Shadow Play]

9 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I don't care who runs Ross County, so no.

I completely disagree with him too. This is one of the things the furlough scheme was set up for. 

Are you sure?  As I understand it the furlough scheme was set up in order that employers could retain the jobs of their employees.  If a footballer’s contract runs out in June and the club has no intention of offering the player a further contract then there is no job at the club to retain.

Is the above harsh on the individual?  Undoubtedly, yes.  

However if I was given the choice of the Government spending the money they would spend on a furloughed player that was not going to be offered a contract on

(A) The player himself.

(B) The NHS or elsewhere In the public sector.

I would chose (B) every day of the week.

Harsh, but that is the reality of the world we live in.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by Shadow Play

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, da_no_1 said:

I guarantee you it wasn't designed with well paid football players in mind.

It's already been said on here that one of ours turned down a contract offered to him. Where do you stand on that?

You're really running with this 'well paid' thing. Many of the players in question  were younger players who would not be on big wages.

The scheme was for anyone to use. It did not specify a list of professions. 

The player who turned down the contract offer might regret it. Or it might have been a shite deal and he didn't fancy. Or maybe it was a good deal but he's got something better sorted elsewhere.

He should still have had his contract extended for a month in order to be furloughed. 

[DA Baracus]

2 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

Are you sure?  As I understand it the furlough scheme was set up in order that employers could retain the jobs of their employees.  If a footballer’s contract runs out in June and the club has no intention of offering the player a further contract then there is no job at the club to retain.

Is the above harsh on the individual?  Undoubtedly, yes.  

However if I was given the choice of the Government spending the money they would spend on a furloughed player that was not going to be offered a contract on

(A) The player himself.

(B) The NHS or elsewhere In the public sector.

I would chose (B) every day of the week.

Harsh, but that is the reality of the world we live in.

 

 

You don't get to choose though, and that money was never going to be diverted to the NHS.

You aren't seriously trying to build a case of 'players vs the NHS' are you? You're not genuinely trying to make out that money is being diverted from the NHS to footballers are you?

[Shadow Play]

8 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

You don't get to choose though, and that money was never going to be diverted to the NHS.

You aren't seriously trying to build a case of 'players vs the NHS' are you? You're not genuinely trying to make out that money is being diverted from the NHS to footballers are you?

Of course I, or for that matter, anyone on P&B doesn’t get to choose. 

With regards to your second paragraph I was simply using the NHS and public sector as an illustration.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The point I was trying to make (apologies if it wasn’t clear) was that the money paid to a footballer who effectively no longer has a job at the club, comes at a cost to the rest of society.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Shadow Play

[Derry Alli]

6 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

The point I was trying to make (apologies if it wasn’t clear) was that the money paid to a footballer who effectively no longer has a job at the club, comes at a cost to the rest of society.

That's an absolutely crazy statement. 

There are people being paid from previous employers as their new role began after the furlough cut off point. 

Should we be cutting them adrift and supplying that money "to the rest of society"? 

[johnnydun]

9 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

Of course I, or for that matter, anyone on P&B doesn’t get to choose. 

With regards to your second paragraph I was simply using the NHS and public sector as an illustration.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The point I was trying to make (apologies if it wasn’t clear) was that the money paid to a footballer who effectively no longer has a job at the club, comes at a cost to the rest of society.

But if he becomes unemployed, he is still a "cost to the rest of society".

[da_no_1]

You're really running with this 'well paid' thing. Many of the players in question  were younger players who would not be on big wages.
The scheme was for anyone to use. It did not specify a list of professions. 
The player who turned down the contract offer might regret it. Or it might have been a shite deal and he didn't fancy. Or maybe it was a good deal but he's got something better sorted elsewhere.
He should still have had his contract extended for a month in order to be furloughed. 

Obviously I wasn't talking about the young players. I was referring to the likes of Ashcroft and Devine who must surely have the sense to have planned for a close season where they'd be looking for a club.

[Shadow Play]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

That's an absolutely crazy statement. 

There are people being paid from previous employers as their new role began after the furlough cut off point. 

Should we be cutting them adrift and supplying that money "to the rest of society"? 

 

22 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

But if he becomes unemployed, he is still a "cost to the rest of society".

 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 
 

 

[da_no_1]

 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 [emoji106]
 
 

I didn't state that. I quoted it.

[Derry Alli]

1 minute ago, da_no_1 said:

26 minutes 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 
 
 

I didn't state that. I quoted it.

He isn't talking about you, he's talking about Thee DA. The Baracus. THE O.G DA, not knock off wet market rip offs like yourself. 

[rb123!]

9 hours ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Perhaps a more detailed idea of next season's plan, with the possibility of an expanded Championship and only 2 leagues being played, along with how games would be streamed. Still largely hypothetical of course.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/scottish-league-1/1326449/exclusive-lower-league-spfl-divide-opening-up-with-a-full-mothballed-season-a-possibility-for-some/

The ‘Pixellot’ automated camera system will help second tier sides tap into the in-game betting world

Good to see more betting will be openly encouraged...

[da_no_1]

He isn't talking about you, he's talking about Thee DA. The Baracus. THE O.G DA, not knock off wet market rip offs like yourself. 

State of you

[Derry Alli]

Just now, da_no_1 said:

7 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

He isn't talking about you, he's talking about Thee DA. The Baracus. THE O.G DA, not knock off wet market rip offs like yourself. 

State of you

Is that your rip off of the Alicia Keyes and Jay Z hit? 

[da_no_1]

Is that your rip off of the Alicia Keyes and Jay Z hit? 

[emoji16]

[Guest Flash]

1 hour ago, da_no_1 said:

Probably similar to Countys likely position. Will you be calling for their chairman to be punted?

"Having advice on the matter, MacGregor feels it would be “dishonest” to exploit the furlough scheme for players the Staggies would otherwise not retain.
MacGregor said: “We have had some advice from authorities, legal advice and also some HMRC advice.
“We think it’s challenging because keeping players on that you’re not going to sign in many ways is dishonest and that’s not why the scheme was set up.
“Keeping people on furlough when maybe the rest of the people in the club are training is not a scenario I think is right either.
“I do sympathise because there will be a lot of players who fall out of contract in June and if there was a way legally, or a way supported by the government we might take a different view on it.
“At the moment we don’t see that as correct and it would be dishonest for the club.

“That’s where our legal advice comes from and until someone from HMRC or a higher authority reassures us that’s not the case, that’s probably where we stand.”

The only defined “abuse” of the system is in paragraph 2.5 of the Treasury Direction that says “No CJRS claim may be made in respect of an employee if it is abusive or is otherwise contrary to the exceptional purpose of the CJRS.“  Paragraph 2.1 sets out the purpose which is to reimburse employment costs “in respect of furloughed employees arising from the health, social and economic emergency resulting from coronavirus.“

They must be taking the view that it is abusive to extend a contract in order to make a claim.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886959/CJRS_DIRECTION_No2___20_05_2020.pdf

2 hours ago, Mr. Alli said:

A move that will actually cost the club money as they'll have to repay his 'furlough' wages back to the government as he returned early. 

They won’t have to repay it if he has been furloughed for at least three weeks.

[SueSue]

1 hour ago, da_no_1 said:

I guarantee you it wasn't designed with well paid football players in mind.

It's already been said on here that one of ours turned down a contract offered to him. Where do you stand on that?

Any employer who genuinely cares for their employees would keep their staff on furlough as long as possible even if they knew they would be making them redundant or sacking them when furlough stops..... 
 

It has nothing to do whether the person is well paid or not. 

[Shadow Play]

19 minutes ago, SueSue said:

Any employer who genuinely cares for their employees would keep their staff on furlough as long as possible even if they knew they would be making them redundant or sacking them when furlough stops..... 
 

It has nothing to do whether the person is well paid or not. 

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?  
 

[Rob1885]

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?  
 

It'll likely cover players for more than UC would so probably, yes.

[Sergeant Wilson]

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 
 

 

It was designed to stop a huge uptake benefit claims though and protect that system.