insaintee Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 So that's two sides then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Aye Insanity. We can close the topic now I'm confused Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Thanks for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rs_1 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I agree with ................. Ah dunno now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 (edited) as a proud no voter, posts like this bring me much glee What? My joy at being allowed to vent my frustrations? Glad to be of service... Edited October 12, 2014 by Soctty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 So that's two sides then 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. Aye, it is now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Are you sure you haven't missed anything more about contract disputes, opts no, it's the referendum thing again. I thought I made clear I was only replying to the eejit's post to make a point. Also invited mods to delete my post once point was made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soctty Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 your frustration my enjoyment My frustration vented - my enjoyment. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I'm even more confused now with the above posts I think I'll have the day off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Well said... BTW.. Do you know the full story? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rs_1 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Well said... BTW.. Do you know the full story? Nope, hence I am not in a position to judge either side fully. A question for the ones who are advocating the youngster's hanging though - let's say you signed a contract as a 16 year old in 1975 for £20 a week, at the time not unreasonable, and stayed in the same job; would you expect to still be getting paid £20 a week now? After all, that's what's in your 'contract' that you signed?.... It's patently obvious to me that a lot of people on here don't know the first thing about how either contract law specifically, or employment law in general actually work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsybitsy Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rs_1 Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civilsaint Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. That certainly is not "clear". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 I'm even more confused now with the above posts I think I'll have the day off. Then expect yer £1 to be docked this week. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 Then expect yer £1 to be docked this week. ;) Dammit ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. Yeah right thats why he's been all over the press and meeting with lawyers.. to play park football.. c'mon we weren't all born yesterday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Nope, hence I am not in a position to judge either side fully. A question for the ones who are advocating the youngster's hanging though - let's say you signed a contract as a 16 year old in 1975 for £20 a week, at the time not unreasonable, and stayed in the same job; would you expect to still be getting paid £20 a week now? After all, that's what's in your 'contract' that you signed?.... It's patently obvious to me that a lot of people on here don't know the first thing about how either contract law specifically, or employment law in general actually work. My god Kieran signed a contract 22 years before he was born??? You make a good point about not knowing how employment law works, but I can help you out with that if you like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingscot Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rs_1 Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 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. 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.