Jump to content
Granny Danger

Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

The 'least wrong' thing to do is tick a box and - at worst - cover the players' wages for a month then get the money back. 

The only reason that I can see not to keep players on furlough is that the club simply does not have enough money to cover the wages (if it come to that) until the claim was then paid out. Which in itself, must be worrying. 

Furlough money can be claimed in advance of payday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rb123! said:

Paul Paton and Amy MacDonald love the Ayr

100088929_255440045515514_590049036690522112_n.png

Will be interesting to see what the Government makes of this. It's abuse of tax payers money. Not sure how folk can take the moral high ground on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will be interesting to see what the Government makes of this. It's abuse of tax payers money. Not sure how folk can take the moral high ground on this.

How is it an abuse of tax payers money?

The whole point of the furlough scheme is to ensure employees continue to get paid. Ayr are ensuring that our players don’t become unemployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, D'Jaffo said:


How is it an abuse of tax payers money?

The whole point of the furlough scheme is to ensure employees continue to get paid. Ayr are ensuring that our players don’t become unemployed.

If Ayr really want o keep these guys, why not give them a 1-2 year contract and continue furlough?

Giving a 1 month deal reeks of  ''we don't really want you but will just give you a wage out of tax payers money anyway''.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rather than clubs all taking individual advice, it would make sense for the SPFL to contact HMRC for clarification. 

Exactly this and if the SPFL were a coherent organisation they’d have done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a taxpayer I'm absolutely fine with folk getting a short contract extension in order to be furloughed.

Share this post


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

As a taxpayer I'm absolutely fine with folk getting a short contract extension in order to be furloughed.

As a non taxpayer. I'm absolutely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

If Ayr really want o keep these guys, why not give them a 1-2 year contract and continue furlough?

Giving a 1 month deal reeks of  ''we don't really want you but will just give you a wage out of tax payers money anyway''.  

Thats exactly what it is and if thats allowed within the scheme, whats wrong with it? 

Reading between the lines, it seems like someone within Scottish football has questioned whether or not extending temporary contracts is ok, given the players would normally be released. HMRC havent, or wont, confirm one way or another and so anyone giving legal advice is going to hedge their bets and say dont do it. Some clubs have then decided that its too risky to extend contracts and let players go.

I still dont agree but Im beginning to understand the clubs point of view more. It would be have been good if Dunfermline had said some of this in their statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Will be interesting to see what the Government makes of this. It's abuse of tax payers money. Not sure how folk can take the moral high ground on this.

:lol:

Dunfermline fans. Whit the like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Ayr really want o keep these guys, why not give them a 1-2 year contract and continue furlough?
Giving a 1 month deal reeks of  ''we don't really want you but will just give you a wage out of tax payers money anyway''.  

If you want to interpret it that way then you do that.

A better interpretation is that Ayr can’t afford to hand out 3 year deals at the best of time but we’re going to look after our players as best we can. Cameron admitted himself that if Ayr can be seen as a club that looks after its players then it may make them more attractive to potential signings.

Share this post


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

:lol:

Dunfermline fans. Whit the like. 

Too thick to have an opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

:lol:

Dunfermline fans. Whit the like. 

 

Just now, Chubbychops said:

Too thick to have an opinion

:lol:

You said it, mate. 

Share this post


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

 

:lol:

You said it, mate. 

Coming from the man that thought furlough meant everybody got 80% of £2500. I think you will find I have some pertinent points, if you grew a brain you fuckwit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Coming from the man that thought furlough meant everybody got 80% of £2500. I think you will find I have some pertinent points, if you grew a brain you fuckwit.

You'll need to point out where I said that, Chubs. I genuinely have no idea what you're on about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Chubbychops said:

Will be interesting to see what the Government makes of this. It's abuse of tax payers money. Not sure how folk can take the moral high ground on this.

Nothing wrong with it legally as Ayr have not announced that any of them have been or are going to be released yet , along with the point that we are still speaking to a number of them  about returning next season , hopefully by end of this furlough we will have a better idea of start time thus helping with offering a player a solid contract 

Edited by Robbo63

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robbo63 said:

Nothing wrong with it legally as Ayr have not announced that any of them have been or are going to be released yet 

Not talking about legally. I'm taking about folk thinking that they have the moral high ground on this, when I personally think that's questionable.

Time will tell if Ayr did this with the intention to protect long term employment or just give a wage to deadwood and use up tax payers money. 

Edited by Chubbychops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was re-reading the Scottish lockdown exit strategies again. “mass gatherings” to be permitted in the Autumn. Yet your man Raman is saying no crowds at football until Feb 2021. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not talking about legally. I'm taking about folk thinking that they have the moral high ground on this, when I personally think that's questionable.
Time will tell if Ayr did this with the intention to protect long term employment or just give a wage to deadwood and use up tax payers money. 

Why would it be the latter? There would be nothing for Ayr to gain from that.

The only questionable thing here is what Dunfermline have done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not talking about legally. I'm taking about folk thinking that they have the moral high ground on this, when I personally think that's questionable.
Time will tell if Ayr did this with the intention to protect long term employment or just give a wage to deadwood and use up tax payers money. 


I think it’s incredibly clear what’s right morally tbh.

Leave several people severely disadvantaged, due to the current situation, with no income for six weeks until their UC credit claim comes in or ensure they are provided with their normal pay for as long as possible...

That people think it’s morally the right option to leave footballers with no money to pay bills or feed their families is bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who take the view that the morally superior position is to retain players on short contracts, would you say that if this was (or might later be found to be) a breach of the rules of the scheme? As I was saying earlier, I see ethical issues in extending contracts artifically when players have no realistic prospect of being retained when the scheme ends. If HMRC in future decide that this is not just ethically dubious but also an abuse of the scheme, that potentially creates big liabilities for all who have been found to have misused it.

If your potential liability is not all that big and you see the probability of being chased for the money as being small, you might well be tempted to go with it, knowing that if it came to the worst you could make the repayment. If you have a lot of players affected and your potential liability is large, it would be understandable if you just didn't want to take that chance. The more I've thought about it today, the harder I find it to criticise my own club for the decision taken. Same of course for the others who go the same way this coming week.

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...