archieb Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, The Informer said: Ffs, what do you not get, it’s f all to do with the wording, it’s all about the start date. So wonder no more my friend. It's all about your ignorance more like. An ill-informed informer. Whatever next? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Ffs, what do you not get, it’s f all to do with the wording, it’s all about the start date. So wonder no more my friend.Players are contracted for season 2020-21. If a club withdraws and wont play, they're free agents and can leave for clubs who are continuing to play. Surely clubs don't think they can hold players for a season without playing? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Informer Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, archieb said: It's all about your ignorance more like. An ill-informed informer. Whatever next? Of course it is, imagine having to go in front of a tribunal with your defence, ffs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Wouldn't be 100% confident on the rights and wrongs of what The Informer (formerly East Stirling but now Darvel by the looks of things) is saying without seeing the actual wording, but having a contract with a start date in August or whatever and not playing competitively and hence making payments until April or whatever will be a difficult thing to hold players to even if the legality of it is OK, if they want to walk and start to kick up a fuss over it. Everybody else at tier 6 could easily be playing with spectators again by the turn of the year. Time to collect some popcorn and sit back and watch what unfolds, basically. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Burnieman said: 7 minutes ago, The Informer said: Ffs, what do you not get, it’s f all to do with the wording, it’s all about the start date. So wonder no more my friend. Players are contracted for season 2020-21. If a club withdraws and wont play, they're free agents and can leave for clubs who are continuing to play. Surely clubs don't think they can hold players for a season without playing? That may well be so, but our players were not only consulted but agreed with the decision to withdraw. We don't yet fully know what happens next but if any player is so desperate to play, despite the risks, that they want to move elsewhere I agree that probably could not be prevented. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Informer Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, LongTimeLurker said: Wouldn't be 100% confident on the rights and wrongs of what The Informer (formerly East Stirling but now Darvel by the looks of things) is saying without seeing the actual wording, but having a contract with a start date in August or whatever and not playing competitively and hence making payments until April or whatever will be a difficult thing to hold players to even if the legality of it is OK, if they want to walk and start to kick up a fuss over it. Everybody else at tier 6 could easily be playing with spectators again by the turn of the year. Time to collect some popcorn and sit back and watch what unfolds, basically. Just a glory hunter mate, still have a soft spot for the Shire, but I think Darvel have a better chance of winning things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesel1994 Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I'll be willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those clubs that are withdrawing that they won't hold players to the club against their wishes should they wish to play for another club for expenses. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said: Wouldn't be 100% confident on the rights and wrongs of what The Informer (formerly East Stirling but now Darvel by the looks of things) is saying without seeing the actual wording, but having a contract with a start date in August or whatever and not playing competitively and hence making payments until April or whatever will be a difficult thing to hold players to even if the legality of it is OK, if they want to walk and start to kick up a fuss over it. Everybody else at tier 6 could easily be playing with spectators again by the turn of the year. Time to collect some popcorn and sit back and watch what unfolds, basically. So how do you and the misinformer think the clubs that HAVE decided to start playing with NO fans and NO gate income are going to pay their players from now till April or whatever? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Informer Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, archieb said: So how do you and the misinformer think the clubs that HAVE decided to start playing with NO fans and NO gate income are going to pay their players from now till April or whatever? That’s up those clubs Archie my man. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokloyal Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 If clubs want to keep playing with no income to meet their outgoings good luck to them.It is going to bite at some point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 There’s absolutely no chance clubs can keep players without paying them. Indeed players could if the want kick up a fuss about not receiving wages for their work over that last couple of months. Clubs really, really don’t want to start going against players at this moment 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceejayar Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, archieb said: So how do you and the misinformer think the clubs that HAVE decided to start playing with NO fans and NO gate income are going to pay their players from now till April or whatever? I spoke to one of the medda players, they have agreed to play for free, players can claim travelling expenses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Informer Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Final word on this, as I don’t want to ruin Archie’s dinner. Clubs will sign a player during close season, as soon they register that contract with the SFA, and he appears in the system as your player, it becomes active. It’s irrelevant if you have a clause in saying that you will not pay them until the season starts. By the letter of the law you should be paying him from the first day of the contract. I realise this is not the done deal in lower level football, however it is the correct legal procedure. would you sign an employment contract at work with the conditions mentioned by Archie? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Ceejayar said: I spoke to one of the medda players, they have agreed to play for free, players can claim travelling expenses. Hopefully that's been the general consensus on this. The new cases curve will peak and start to decline and good things can happen after that on spectators. Keep the show on the road as there are better days coming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthurlie1981 Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 The contract becomes effective from the date it says it starts, it doesn’t matter what clauses clubs put in. Clubs are effectively breaking the terms of the contract by not paying from the start date.I am not sure they are. If the team is still going to play in the SJC then they are not in breach. In fact an argument could be made that by playing friendlies and training they have already met the terms of the contract. You would need a legal decision to come to a final conclusion and with the back log in the courts and the costs associated would anyone be willing to do it. Personally I believe clubs should release players and allow them to play if that’s what they wish but that would be up to the club and the player to come to an agreement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Informer Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Just now, Arthurlie1981 said: I am not sure they are. If the team is still going to play in the SJC then they are not in breach. In fact an argument could be made that by playing friendlies and training they have already met the terms of the contract. You would need a legal decision to come to a final conclusion and with the back log in the courts and the costs associated would anyone be willing to do it. Personally I believe clubs should release players and allow them to play if that’s what they wish but that would be up to the club and the player to come to an agreement. It would go to a SFA tribunal to decide first mate, I wouldn’t imagine it would need to get as far as the law courts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthurlie1981 Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Nothing ethically wrong if the players have been consulted and agree with it.I wasn’t taking about Pollok. I was talking about any club. To be clear if a player came and asked to be let out his contract to enable him to play would Pollok hold him against their will or release them? It is ethnically wrong to hold a player when you have no intention of playing competitive football this year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeforchange Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 I’m sure there was something advised from the Sfa that there was something that said the contracts didn’t commence till the first competitive game was played . Not 100% on it though I’m looking for article just now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthurlie1981 Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 It would go to a SFA tribunal to decide first mate, I wouldn’t imagine it would need to get as far as the law courts.Fair point. I think it is moot anyway because no club could be that stupid to hold onto a player. If they did there reputation in the game would be almost certainly irreparably damaged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted October 11, 2020 Share Posted October 11, 2020 Shotts BA still in but not happy campers about the promotion issue. Maybe one of the 14 changed their mind then? https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/shotts-been-absolutely-shafted-west-22827341?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar ...Following a crisis meeting at Hannah Park today, McKeown confirmed they still currently plan on kicking off the season... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.