beyond our ken
-
Posts
5,638 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by beyond our ken
-
-
I said it before and I'll repeat it:
- It's pretty obvious he now doesn't want to play for the Buddies.
- He wants to pursue a university education.
- He may want to continue playing football at some level.
The best way out of this is for St Mirren to say to Kieran "ok we understand your position and hopefully you see ours. You wish to pursue a different career through a university degree and we fully support that. As a result we will release you from the contract as long as you don't put pen to paper with any other professional or semi-professional football club for the next (say 5 years or whatever the legal period is for development players). If you do then we will expect repayment of all development costs and if appropriate any fee that we at St Mirren would be entitled to, if you joined another club, as a result of work we have put into you".
There sorted!
, you can't put unfair conditions on someone's ability to earn a living, so the agreement to not sign a pro contract is unenforceable.
sometimes, if you leave an employer, you might agree not to work for a competitor for a period-you may continue to be paid or take a conditional lump sum. That is a form of garden leave and it is both voluntary and short-term. The issue has not been adressed in many posts and that issue is his registration (which saints have paid the authorities for), not his contract. he can sign a contract with who he wants but he cant play.
the kid is trying to shame/pester saints into cancelling his registration by raising the contract. If saints smell some money in the deal then the worst they will have to do is pay the boy some readies based on what both parties eventualy agree is the contractual sum. we still hold his registration.
the precedent is very important for saints and i have faith that it is already bottomed out.
as for contract or employment law-these are constantly being defined, challenged and re-defined. there is no clear-cut scenario here
-
You can't buy the learning that DL acquired in the cup run and thereafter. When you think that all new-ish managers make mistakes, and the fact that the signings after the cup win were hit & miss, then he probably knows some things he definitely won't do again.
He compressed about 10 years of highs and lows into a few seasons in Paisley. For the life of me, i cant see why St Mirren weren't able to take advantage of that. i hope it all comes good for the guy
-
I took just a little time and already found this.
The language is, IMO, unneccessary and unhelpful.
I still hope the club have acted honourably.
I missed this, but if you look at the time stamps you will see that ZA posted the accusation before itsybitsy added his tuppenceworth.
Maybe this is what ZA was trying to provoke-I don't know. i really don't see the point of complaini ng about something before it happens unless you are trying to whip up a ferment
-
There is something inherently wrong in the way that a lot of people are talking about this young man on this thread. People describing him as a rat or a traitor or whatever is completely uncalled for - NONE of you know the full story, NONE of you know the full contents of the contract, and NONE of you actually know this young man personally.
There are a lot of people discussing the issue that need to grow up a hell of a lot more than the 18 year old in question.
IF someone has used those two words then I would completely agree, but i've searched all posts twice and no mention of "rat" or "traitor" can i find. Some, including myself, have indicated they sense a lack of good faith on the player's part-but that is all.
All of which makes the last line of your post confusing and somewhat ironic. I really don't know why you took that tack.
-
You can only get off with something if you are proven to be guilty of it.
-
Tell you what Bluto I hold an advanced first aid certificate and no way would you get me going down there. Even a nurse in Spain has higher training than the troops on the ground have and she still caught it inside a hospital ward. Other western nurses in West Africa have also caught it. Sending medical teams voluntary is one thing. Sending 17 year old squaddies is quite another.
It'smaybe not as simple as that, Ian. i think the bulk of our support are field medical and experienced relief staff-the ones on the news today semed very happy to go and very focussed on their objective
given that we have to do something, these guys seem the best people for the job
-
I don't think anyone could blame this boy for wanting to keep all his irons in the fire so to speak at this early stage in his life. I'm sure it is a dilema for any really clever boy that is also really good at football (or any other sport). He will be bright enough to know that the chances of being a real top pro footballer are slim but that chance is still there for him. In a sense he does want his cake and eat it as others have said but can anyone really blame him in his position. You can also see the clubs point in that we have developed the talent he is showing however there has to be a compromise somewhere as at the moment it's a turkey shoot in the press at our expense. With lawyers on the board why did it ever get to this stage - surely there must be a solution ?
Nothing wrong with him wanting to keep all his irons in the fire, problem is he started a full time contract with saints in june, knowing he had done well in his exams and already had a provisional acceptance for uni. Some would take the view that he has taken a chance other kids wanted more than he did and shit all over it. He is now actively putting off other kids from coming to saints REDUCING the number of opportunities open to less fortunate youngsters. I hope he is never my doctor, that's for sure
a classic case of a young man, no doubt spurred on by his family, signing up to something he was fully aware of but had no intention of honouring once he had got all the benefit he could from it-once it is down to him to make a few sacrifices and deliver for the people who have wasted scarce and precious resources on him he bales. Nasty wee boy with a very selfish attitude on this evidence.
-
As I'm sure you all know, we have lost all 4 of our home league games this season, scoring only once in the process. All 7 of our points and 7 of our 8 goals have came on the road.
Is this a coincidence? Or is our home crowd playing a part in the teams poor home form?
We have such a young team, and as anyone who has ever been to a home game will know, it doesn't take much for the Paisley punters to get on our players backs. It isn't an easy place to play for an experienced player when things aren't going well, never mind a youngster.
I personally think our players seem to play with more confidence and freedom on the road. In contrast, they seem to play with a bit of fear and reticence at home.
We now have two important home games coming up - ICT then Ross County - and we really need to pick up more points. In these games, let's be patient with our young players and not get on their back so quickly.
Let's get right behind the team from the start. If we do I'm sure they will reward us with two big performances and hopefully at least one home win.
If that is true then the players lack professionalism and desire, they need to learn to cope with the pressure of the game and our stadium is far from intmimidating even when full. True there are some young players in the team, but it's hardly a primary age side. I dont think the crowd are putting particular presure on the team
-
Scope in his contract to be paid for the hours he shows up
But he wasn't paid as he was allowed to study, unpaid leave of absence is a common feature in many contracts
Somewhere along the line he got 20 odd quid which he then purports to be a pound a week for 20 odd weeks
I suppose it is all down to whose definition of wages is accepted
Anyway, he is not being held to a contract, saints are merely holding on to his registration. I suppose the club would not be hard to deal with if he uses anything he makes from football to pay back on his development
-
Agree with the above. The only reservation I have is regarding the £1 earnings (that he claims was never paid) - if it's true then it is a bit scandalous but I expect that it probably isn't the full story.
i imagine he hoped to be allowed to just slip away and get a deal as a part-timer after the window shut as an unsigned player. If the club suspects that he is ready to sign another deal that they think they can benefit from, then all they have to do to make this action go away is pay him the £2.73 an hour for as many hours as the rate legally applies. That keeps him a saints player and anyone who wants him has to pay up.
it could well be that the rate does not legally apply to any time not already paid, or worst case we need to fork out a few hundred to keep his registration.
seems to me that the kid has benefitted from a development deal that would get him a really good chance of part-time football and a decent wage on the side to see him towards his real ambition of studying for his medical degree-with the chance that his career could catch light and that he could rake it in as a foorballer and he could always return to study later in life. It's great to have strategy that covers a two-way bet on your future, but you really need to only sign deals in the good faith that both parties will honour for the full term of the contract. Saints can't afford to spend tens of thousands developing players for Dumbarton, etc.
-
FFS, you're a scarey man. I better not upset you again, eh?
On second thoughts, shut the f**k up.
:i think someone with a set of balls has hacked his account
-
I meant until now. I'd stayed out of the outpouring of venom and vitriol which I knew would come big style after the inevitable No vote. I wasn't wrong. But starting new threads to carry on talking shite is in my opinion beyond the pale. Only Yes men seem allowed opinions nowadays.
Venom and Vitriol? Really?
How disappointing was it for you that there was no civil unrest at the polling stations-as you implied would happen before voting even began?
-
Presumably you don't really need reminded of your rights but anyway you may of course continue to support whoever the hell you like. (Even R**gers?) The general election is set for the 7th.of May next year. Could we not have a break until then? Alternatively, someone could start a thread entitled 'All The Political Shite In Here' so those of us who don't want to read it can avoid it. It seems to pop up all over the shop.
You could always stay away from the thread-that's the advice you gave me
And there is a wee hint in the thread title that it is about politics. if you need stronger hints we could maybe get a parental lock or something put in
Or maybe you are enjoying yourself too much smacking people round the ears with your daily mail rhetoric
-
As much as I am not a fan of Willie Miller he was pointing out our defence deficiencies in some detail the other night with Tommy Wright sitting next to him basically telling Tommy how to beat us (not that Tommy probably needed help and of course the Dons didn't but should have).
In general summary our back line plays too high up the pitch and cannot keep a line allowing attackers to remain onside. Anyone playing off the shoulder has a clear run with a wee dink into the space behind. Our full backs get too high and no-one covers when they are out of position and they do not recover fast enough. Our midfield can be very slow (or don't) pick up opposition support players rushing forward on breakaways.
If opposition managers and officials can see the glaring problems surely we should also? And do something about it?
Anyway, here's hoping Tommy Wright is too confident and we surprise them and do something different like defend better
Willie miller was a very good player and a dreadful manager. Tommy Wright most likely did NOT take any notes from him
-
There you have it folks, the tories and their supporters and their ilk would rather we didn't continue the re-politicisation of the scottish populace and that the major parties went back to their shades of grey which go generally unquestioned by the electorate.
Worried people, the lot of them.
-
What a pompous wee responseDoes it? In criminal law? Some examples would be good.
Did you get a box of question marks for Christmas?
The answer, of course, is that prosecutions under the health and safety at work act and associated regulations place a burden of proof on the defendant to show how they complied with the law rather than on the prosecution to prove a breach
-
Remind me to transfer your post to the Grumpy Thread.
You're no the grumpiest, keep practising.
You are funny though.Grumpy?-it was all writen with a song in my heart and a playful smile on my lips
Your problem is that, without the aid of smileys, you have no idea how to interpret a post
-
Game Set and Match to Smokie.
Now, if the game is implying some wrong doing without admitting that this is what you are up to then yes
if the game is using smileys as a way of deflecting the lack of guile behind the post then again, he wins
if the game is finding fun in upsetting people and laughing at them when they complain then he is leagues ahead of the rest of the forum
if it is being a coward who hides behind a keyboard whilst sticking his tongue out at the world then he is world-champion material.
If the game is being a butt-licking, repetitive moron then he needs lessons from you
-
It is, Rick, I said precisely that in my post.
If you read my post in full, faraway, then, in law, the presumption of innocence kicks in if the verdict is Not Proven.
The point I'm making is that the accused doesn't have to prove anything, the prosecution has to prove guilt - entirely as it should be, imo. Remove the imported "Not Guilty" verdict and all the dubiety around "Not Proven" disappears.
Not entirely true, in some cases, the law stipulates that the burden of proof falls on the accused rather than on the prosecution.
-
What's strange about it?
The bit in bold......................I think it's pretty clear as well?
It's more the use of the whistling smiley, you seem to be implying something that is not written in the text
-
Wasn't it nice to see the Scottish Government award Fergusons Ship Builders - now owned by Independence Supporter Jim McColl - a new £12m contract for Cal Mac Ferries just one month after the company went into administration due to a lack of orders, and just two weeks after McColl won the bidding process to buy up the firm at a knock down price.
You'd think those tin foil wearing conspiracy theorists who reckoned the whole referendum vote was rigged despite assertions from the Yes Campaign when it clearly wasn't, would have turned their attention to this with obvious questions like - why wasn't this order placed one month earlier thereby keeping workers in a job? Why did the Scottish Government feel the need to withhold orders to force the company to collapse and to pay off all it's skilled workers? And why did it only place the new order once Jim McColl had taken over the business? You'd also think they'd be asking questions like - Is this Jim McColls pay off for being supportive of a Yes Vote? And was this similar to when the Scottish Government let David Murray buy the £50m valued Princes Mall Shopping Centre in Edinburgh for just 40p the day after David Murray issued a press statement declaring that he had changed his mind as was now supportive of Independence in Scotland?
Prior to placing an order of this value, due dilligence requires that all bidders for work undergo a credit-worthyness check
I'd imagine that prior to the summer, Ferguson's rating would have been in the shitter since they were already going bust. There is no knowing who would have got the yard if an order was placed, indeed there is no knowing where another owner might have taken the work to. One thing is for sure, had the new ferry already been in the order book, the yard would suddenly have become way more attractive to bidders from far and wide and the work could have gone anywhere
-
Don't, some people have a problem with "innocent until proved guilty" then, when it doesn't go the way they would prefer "Not Guilty" doesn't mean innocent.
A play on words but it keeps them happy and bitter, oh, and twisted.
I wonder how they would feel if a family member was accused, then found "not guilty"..................................
It's a "lose,lose" situation for the accused.
A strange post, especially the bit in bold-care to expand?
-
Let me say any saint mirren fans found guilty of the behaviour suggested by VD should be severley punished and indeed prosecuted
I would also say, should VD's allegations be found to be spurious, he should be ostracised in the game and have a lengthy ban imposed upon him and severe punishment on his club for needlessly and spuriously accusing the saint mirren support
-
you cant help responding
its what keeps you going
did you ever manage to figure out what type of pension you have?
A feckin massive one
The Tommy Craig Must Go Thread
in General St. Mirren Discussion
Posted
quite a change in tack from your approach to theprevious manager's performance. I wonder if you felt bad about the way you cheer-led the Lennon-out mob, or if you feel you were so committed to any change at all that you can't accept Craig is a disaster as a club manager