Jump to content

Youngster In Contract Dispute


HSS

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

Nope, I posted after that rather disgusting comment - it's what made me decide to comment in the way that I did because it was completely uncalled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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

Edited by davidg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Nope - and you know fine well that I wasn't implying that - I was of course demonstrating that the employment contract is not formed exclusively by the bit of paper that somebody signs; that isn't actually a contract at all. A contract is about the combination of the written statement of terms and conditions, implied terms stemming from both government legislation and case law, actions that become terms through custom and practice, collective agreements, decisions by tribunals that become binding, implications from equality legislation, the legal status of the worker (i.e. employee, independent contractor or other).

Given that I have taught employment law for a number of years, have been in charge of it as a discipline where I work, and am a paid external consultant on it for a University in London, I do like to think I have a little knowledge and experience in the area....

But cheers for offering to explain it to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it before and I'll repeat it:

  1. It's pretty obvious he now doesn't want to play for the Buddies.
  2. He wants to pursue a university education.
  3. 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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by rs_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said it before and I'll repeat it:

  1. It's pretty obvious he now doesn't want to play for the Buddies.
  2. He wants to pursue a university education.
  3. 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

Edited by beyond our ken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by rs_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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 we would have been entitled to compensation had Kenny McLean moved on in the summer.

Edited by davidg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Kiaran was well aware of the possibility of a loan deal well before it was too late as you claim 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 by 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.

Edited by Itsybitsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 we would have been entitled to compensation had Kenny McLean moved on in the summer.

I don't think St Mirren would make much money from compensation in this case since a major part of the compensation calculation would take into account wages + taxes paid during the "training" period and the reports claim that the player wasn't even being paid the £1 per week indicated in his contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

The club have never been awkward towards the situation - they have done nothing but go beyond the call of duty to try and support the boy and for their efforts the boy and his father have decided to stab the club in the back - the club that have developed him into the player that he is today.

I am confused where the out of spite angle you are using is coming from - the way that I see it is that the only people being spiteful are the boy and his father by going to the newspapers. I am sure in the long run they will regret that as the way that I understand it the club are more than happy to hold him to the contract for the next 18 months whereas if they had acted professionally and openly then a mutual conclusion for all could have been achieved such as a loan deal that he was offered but the situation now the way I understand it that it is highly unlikely that or anything else will be on the table again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club have never been awkward towards the situation - they have done nothing but go beyond the call of duty to try and support the boy and for their efforts the boy and his father have decided to stab the club in the back - the club that have developed him into the player that he is today.

I am confused where the out of spite angle you are using is coming from - the way that I see it is that the only people being spiteful are the boy and his father by going to the newspapers. I am sure in the long run they will regret that as the way that I understand it the club are more than happy to hold him to the contract for the next 18 months whereas if they had acted professionally and openly then a mutual conclusion for all could have been achieved such as a loan deal that he was offered but the situation now the way I understand it that it is highly unlikely that or anything else will be on the table again.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by rs_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope - and you know fine well that I wasn't implying that - I was of course demonstrating that the employment contract is not formed exclusively by the bit of paper that somebody signs; that isn't actually a contract at all. A contract is about the combination of the written statement of terms and conditions, implied terms stemming from both government legislation and case law, actions that become terms through custom and practice, collective agreements, decisions by tribunals that become binding, implications from equality legislation, the legal status of the worker (i.e. employee, independent contractor or other).

Given that I have taught employment law for a number of years, have been in charge of it as a discipline where I work, and am a paid external consultant on it for a University in London, I do like to think I have a little knowledge and experience in the area....

But cheers for offering to explain it to me...

No worries the offer still stands if you want to tap into my experience of ensuring 80,000 employees contracts, and work responsibilities complied with it.

Do I win the pissing contest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

For f**ks sake Kieran have you no got some studying ta dae..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries the offer still stands if you want to tap into my experience of ensuring 80,000 employees contracts, and work responsibilities complied with it.

Do I win the pissing contest?

Maybe it's a pissing contest to you - I haven't got the remotest interest in shite like that - all I ever do in threads like this is give legally accurate information based on my qualified expertise, which is exactly what I did. Others clearly have a chip on their shoulder and a misguided and incorrect interpretation of what they believe the laws are and how they work. People can take the correct information I give, or leave it, it's no skin off my nose - one thing I don't have is an ego. I think I demonstrated that in the referendum thread when I walked away after similar crap directed at me - just as I'm doing here and now.

Link to comment
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...
×
×
  • Create New...