[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

It is a shame that the boy ad his father were not thinking at all of the PR of the club when they decided to go to the papers which is a shame and despite what you say about not blaming him or his father fully they both need to be fully responsible for their actions especially the father as the boy will take direction from him as most boys would.

As for Willie Smith his influence with the boy worries me and I am surprised that the boys father was not fully aware of both his real intentions and the police investigation he is involved with through a coach at his club. If it is Kiaran's Dad's intentions to protect and get the best for his son as is the case with most fathers it is very surprising that he has allowed his son to become involved with such a character - I would go as far to say that instead of protecting him he has actually allowed him to be used as a pawn by a man with a very chequered history to say the least. I certainly wouldn't like any son of mine to be used in such a way.

As I say, it isn't common knowledge that Willie Smith is under investigation - i didn't know it and a few others ive spoken to didn't either, so I doubt the boy or his father would have known. And to essentially suggest the boy's dad is a bad father is certainly taking things too far. I understand your point about Willie Smith but I think that blame has to be directed towards him solely. Also, your point about Kieran and his father acting in an unethical manner is poor considering that in the 'business model' clubs work in, their practices aren't exactly pointed towards being ethical.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

Nothing on the table again ? One is being as bad as the other here with the young boy smack in the middle , he is probably going on his fathers advice not his own. I'm on the clubs side here but the last part of your post really sounds petty and stubborn.

The club could do a 'good' PR job here by getting him out on loan and putting the clubs side of the story to the press. Holding back a young talent even an ill-advised one just seems wrong.

Completely agree - doing the loan deal would create a good image of the club in this particular case. It would suit all parties and if the club didn't do it simply out of what seems like spite they'd be risking it going to court where who knows what could happen. I think if anyone's giving him advice it's probably Willie Smith - I know Kieran is unaware of what seems to be his ulterior motives and therefore, even if you do think the boy has went down the wrong path in terms of the contract, it's not necessarily right to blame him or his father fully.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

Kiaran was well aware of the possibility of a loan deal well before it was too late as you say. The club spoke to both him and his father so your claim that it was only at the last minute is simply untrue. I have no idea of the opinion of the club in sending him,out on loan now after what him and his father have done as they feel very betrayed by both the boy and his father but their actions as they feel their actions have been ill advised at best and very sneaky and low at worst. My feeling is it is somewhere in between.

It's funny how you knew about the loan deal but have failed to mention it thus far? Is that because it actually proves that the club are not stopping the boy playing football - they are more than happy to let him but on its terms which they are more than entitled to do. It's funny how the newspapers make no mention of it. Kiaran and his father are being very selective on this information they release. Nothing wrong with telling their story but they should at least have the balls to tell all of it and not carefully selected portions of it.

From what I know (which I just found out today - so that's why I hadn't mentioned it) St Mirren were very ambiguous and awkward towards the situation and the loan deal - I don't believe there was any specific words about a loan other than something along the lines of something would be figured out, which can't be directly interpreted as a loan deal. The only time I know there was very specific mention of a loan deal was when it was too late. If the club don't loan now, even if Kieran agrees, simply out of spite then that would just cause more trouble in terms of legal action etc. Don't you feel it would be better for St Mirren to agree to a loan, even now?

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

Pretty sure a contract running out doesn't mean St Mirren would get no "financial gain", as you call it. Others call it compensation.

We would still be due compensation should he sign a contract elsewhere, in the same way would have been entitled to compensation had Kenny McLean moved on in the summer.

Good point - apologies for that mistake.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

You are correct in that the Willie Smith part is widely known and that is the reason I mention it here. How can the boy take advice from him when he can't prevent members of his boys club being abused? His priorities are all wrong and that is plain to see.

I do not doubt that the boy played in those games however like it or not there was a twelve month period when he was unsure of his future that he did not attend the club and the club supported him through this period.

I also think it sums the boy up in that he has been saying quite openly that St Mirren are trying to stop him playing football and this is not the case. In fact quite the opposite is true. Last year the club supported him through school and also allowed him to play for his tea. In addition to that the club have also offered for him to go out on loan so that he can play as he wishes and this offer has been made to both the boy and his father and without being given an answer on it the next thing the club knows is that they are getting a call from Liam O'Donnel who is the boys lawyer but is also embroidered more in this with his ties to Queens Park as I mentioned earlier. It is a shame it has come to this and it also a shame that many of the youth players and their parents have now made their negative feelings of the boy and his dad well known to the club. You mention before that you speak to some of them so i am sure they will confirm this for you.

Do you have internal connections with the club? You seem to know an awful lot of specific information about what's going on within it in terms of this case.

I didn't dispute that fact - I simply wanted to prove that the boy was on a £1 a week contract when he was indeed training and playing, doesn't that make the contract illegal or at the very least questionable in its validity?

As far as I know with the loan deal, Kieran was under the impression that St Mirren weren't going to allow a loan deal until it was too late and the article was already about to be published. So, if that's the case maybe a loan could indeed be a solution as I'm sure Kieran would be potentially open to it if the club are. A loan deal could potentially solve the problem temporarily, but at one point St Mirren would either want fees for him moving to a low level club or else the contract would just run out and they'd get no financial gain from him, which seems to be high priority for the Saints. If the latter is the case, then what's the point in holding on to him in the first place?

The article said his lawyer was from a firm, which is as far as I know of no relation to Liam O'Donnell.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

I am afraid that your information on when the boy was training is not accurate. The points I make regarding Willie Smith are as you say ridiculous but very relevant.

You state that the contract was not drawn up in a lawful manner? Really - Could you please elaborate in this? You obviously know something that the St Mirren lawyer doesn't know as they are very clear in that it is 100% legal and watertight.

You have stated that you believe the conditions are dreadful - I find this very strange since the facilities that the youth teams at the club use have been graded second only to the old firm. For someone who appears to be very knowledgeable in the workings of the football club I am surprised that you believe the conditions to be dreadful.

In my opinion the boy and his father have gone about this in the wrong way and the club have acted 100% honourably. I also think it is quite a contradiction that on one hand the boy states that he just wants to concentrate on his studies but on the other he is quite happy to be in the newspaper and drag the issue through the courts? The two do not marry up for me and they are trying everything they can to have him released but I for one am glad that the club are sticking to their guns as they are totally in the right for their stance on the situation.

EDIT - Itsybitsy messed up quote function

The proof of when he was training and playing is in this link: http://www.saintmirren.net/pages/?p=20882

It is the report for the youth cup quarter final where he was playing - he also played in the semi final v Dunfermline about a month later and several other games. And that's only u20 games - he played in most, if not all, under 17 matches too. I think this proves that he was training and playing during the £1 a week period from December 2012 to the summer of 2013. It then follows that the contract isn't legal considering it's a professional contract and £1 a week for the hours worked (even if it was only an hour or two a week!) is under minimum wage.

I doubt the Willie Smith part is widely known (mainly the investigation). A few people of whom I know well know Willie Smith and haven't mentioned anything of it. I doubt Kieran will know of it either. But yes, still quite ridiculous, especially if none of the stuff you reported is being disclosed.

Also, I don't necessary think the conditions are dreadful, it was a parent of a current St Mirren youth player who stated that. I'm under no doubt that the facilities are fantastic. I'd have to assume that by conditions he means mostly hours and wages.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

Young players are doing more than 30 hours a week?

£65 a week at minimum wage for apprentices what 25 hours a week. For footballers 25 hours a week would seem correct!

For first team squad members 25 or under would be correct, but not for young players in U20 squads.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

The points I made earlier are 100 percent accurate. You obviously have benn ill informed I am afraid.

There is definitely skulduggery here without a shadow of a doubt on the side of the boy and those representing him. Talking of which this whole thing is being pushed by a guy called Willie Smith who is the president of Hillwood Boys Club 100 percent nothing to do with either Kiaran or the club. He is a chip on his shoulder with development programmes as his two grandsons were not good enough to progress. He has links to Gary Ralston at the DR which is why it managed to get into the paper. Now this has been in the papers on 3 occasions now and has had vast coverage. Don't you think It isstrange how a coach on Hillwood Boys Club has been suspended by both the club and the SFA and is under a police investigation into a sexual assault of a minor. I think willie Smith should be more concerned about protecting his own youngsters as opposed to those he has no connection with. This received only very limited coverage in the paper.

The club are protecting their investment they have made in the boy and any club would do that. He has signed a contract which he should adhere to even if he does choose to go to university and not play for the duration of it. That is the whole point of a contract and I am glad the club are sticking to their guns and holding him to it. Hopefully he will learn a lesson from this.

My information on the youngster and when he was training is definitely 100% accurate, although I can't say much about Liam O'Donnell. I must admit you do make some good points regarding Willie Smith, especially the investigation part which, if true, is ridiculous on his part.

If the contract was drawn up in a lawful manner then I'd agree with you that it should be stuck to, but that clearly isn't the case. I completely appreciate, and I'm sure Kieran does too, that St Mirren want to protect their interests and 'investment'. However, I think you surely must also appreciate how Kieran wants to protect his own interests and continue to play football.

The case seems to have a whole other dimension in the way that clubs pay and contract young players. The youngster isn't directly involved in this side of it but it could certainly be the case that clubs will have to answer to minimum wage legislation and their treatment of young players. If that's the pathway then, if this case does go to court, I'm afraid it could be St Mirren learning a lesson. I've also been told that an anonymous parent of another young St Mirren player has thanked Kieran for his story as the conditions and hours are dreadful. Recently, some young players at St Mirren have been paid £65 a week. If it's the case (which it is) that players have been in for even as little as 30 hours per week then that wage is blatantly under minimum.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

You'd have thought a well educated, balanced youngster and his parents wouldn't sign a contract in june they wish to tear up in September!

He's been tapped up and everyone knows it. The club accommodated him in his studies, he keeps saying its not about the £1 contract farce he's put out, but he wants ti sign for another club! He ism't on about signing for the uni team.

The 3.5 year contract was actualy signed in December 2012. Kieran had every intention of staying on full time with St Mirren at the time of signing the contract.

If signing with another club it would no doubt be one of a low level where he wouldn't have to devote too much time to. After all, his main focus now is presumably university and there's no way he'll play full time football again or even part time with a club in the first or second division, for example, especially when he'll be studying such an intense course for the next 5-6 years.

[Youngster In Contract Dispute]

If possible I would like to get back on subject and talk about the contract dispute. Here is what I know:

1. The club bent over backwards for this kid - in the year when he had his £1 a week contract he is talking about he was unsure of his future to the point that he never came into the club for a full year - it is correct he didn't receive payment on his contract for the period but he was nowhere near the club for a year.

2. The boy and hid Dad have been angling for him to leave the club and his Dad quoted as saying he could just go and play for Queens Park. Who is the Manager? Gus obviously who is very bitter against the club and would do anything to get under its skin

3. Gus and Liam O'Donnell are close friends. Do you think it is only a coincidence that Liam O'Donnell is the lawyer representing Kiaran? I definitely smell a rat here. It gets even murkier when you consider the fact that Liam O'Donnell is also an agent and runs a business that Gus is also involved in. I would suggest that being a PFA lawyer and an agent is definitely a conflict of interests.

The club have done nothing wrong here apart from supporting the boy and in turn are getting shafted and hung out to dry by the boy and his Dad. They should be ashamed of themselves and I hope he is seen for the little rat that he is.

Actually, I know Kieran relatively well and a lot of this is blatantly inaccurate. Firstly, when he had the £1 a week contract he WAS training and playing with the club. For the 6-7 months when the £1 a week was in place he was training and playing with the under 17 side and also with the under 20 side on many occasions. It's true that he was at school during the period but that doesn't lessen the fact that he was on a professional contract where he should have been paid minimum wage for the hours he worked (not to mention the fact that the £1 a week wasn't even paid). Also, where did you get the quote from his father? I'm almost certain he has not had any connection with Queens Park or Gus McPherson and for you to claim that is pure conjecture based on absolutely no evidence.

I absolutely agree that St Mirren supported Kieran for the most part in terms of his education, and I'm sure he would too, but shouldn't that be a given? The reason this dispute is happening is because St Mirren now won't release a contract and let the youngster continue playing football and turning out for even his uni side or an amateur side. So fundamentally I think the problem lies in the fact that a good education and professional football clearly oppose each other. If Kieran was to have chosen full time football over a first rate education, I'm sure he could have continued to get a second rate education somewhere, whether it be part time college or something along those lines. But because he's chosen a first rate education over first rate football, surely he should still be allowed to play second rate football instead of no football at all? A system should be put in place so that both first rate football and a first rate education can go along with each other - after all, if that was the case there wouldn't be a dispute here in the first place and both parties would be much better off.