Lord Pityme Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 It does not matter how many youth players are paid a wage or not. He was and if true £1.00 is below the legal wage. The law is the law , as I wrote if this goes to court then our club will be proved guilty for not meeting the minimum wage which will be costly for the club. They will have to pay all legal fees and suffer a fine for not paying the minimum that's the bottom line. Your not getting it. He wasn't a full time club employee. He was playing youth football, he wasn't getting paid a wage at all, he got his expenses i.e. BFH He was at college, and school before that, now he says (we'll see) that he's off to Uni. Did anyone on here get paid for playing for a youth team? He signed with his parents a YOUTH team development contract, meaning in exchange for all the coaching and development, he would not sign for another club during that time. All youth teamsvhave a variation of this, like all organised anateur teans to stop people just moving to a club they feel is doing better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gosport Buddie Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Not being covered by BBC, SKY or STV. Sounds like a wee boy greetin cos he's not getting his own way in the big bad world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) I'm going to clarify this one a little, though couldn't in full without knowing the definitive details of the contract. If the contract was a professional one, and created an employer / employee relationship, he was entitled to be paid minimum wage. In that circumstance, the club can legally include a restrictive covenant in the contract preventing him plying his trade for another football team. On the other hand, if the contract was NOT of an employer / employee nature and rather a contract for services, then he was not entitled to the minimum wage, but the club cannot legally impose a restrictive covenant restricting his ability to play for other clubs. In other words, whichever of the two types of contract it is that he signed, our club are in the wrong - either by not paying him the legal minimum wage OR by trying to restrict his ability to play - it IS one or the other. Edited October 8, 2014 by zurich_allan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 According to the article he signed a "professional contract", whatever that means. Does that mean that he is entitled to the minimum wage? I don't know and, presumably, neither do you. We'll just have top wait and see. I hope you are right and I expect the club to be in the right but without all the relevant details it's only speculation on all our behalfs. Yes a few crucial words left out of the article about the contract like 'Youth' and 'Development'... If he had signed a full squad contract he would be working five days a week. He wasn't he was at school, then college and doing what. Most of us on here have done, playing youth football in his free time. The club honoured the contract, Kieran wants to tear it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Yes a few crucial words left out of the article about the contract like 'Youth' and 'Development'... If he had signed a full squad contract he would be working five days a week. He wasn't he was at school, then college and doing what. Most of us on here have done, playing youth football in his free time. The club honoured the contract, Kieran wants to tear it up. But if that's the case then the club have included legally unfair contract terms in the contract, which depending on the severity of the terms could lead to the contract being declared void or voidable by a court. Certainly the unfair terms would be legally unenforceable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Dissappointing, the boy has talent, would imagine its Celtic that have tapped him up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 I'm going to clarify this one a little, though couldn't in full without knowing the definitive details of the contract. If the contract was a professional one, and created an employer / employee relationship, he was entitled to be paid minimum wage. In that circumstance, the club can legally include a restrictive covenant in the contract preventing him plying his trade for another football team. On the other hand, if the contract was NOT of an employer / employee nature and rather a contract for services, then he was not entitled to the minimum wage, but the club cannot legally impose a restrictive covenant restricting his ability to play for other clubs. In other words, whichever of the two types of contract it is that he signed, our club are in the wrong - either by not paying him the legal minimum wage OR by trying to restrict his ability to play - it IS one or the other. Wrong! His contract is registered with the SPFL and the SFA as a youth development contract, like every other youth player , at every other professional club in Scotland. None of them get paid until they sign a full/part time playing contract. Its like any youth team playing down at St James, you can't just walk out of one team and into another when it suits! The difference here is the youth team are affiliated to the club, but again they are their own entity. He forgot to mention he was at college, and this was like any other youth team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Wrong! His contract is registered with the SPFL and the SFA as a youth development contract, like every other youth player , at every other professional club in Scotland. None of them get paid until they sign a full/part time playing contract. Its like any youth team playing down at St James, you can't just walk out of one team and into another when it suits! The difference here is the youth team are affiliated to the club, but again they are their own entity. He forgot to mention he was at college, and this was like any other youth team. There are other lads like Kieran who have full time jobs as well as turning out for the youth team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Your not getting it. He wasn't a full time club employee. He was playing youth football, he wasn't getting paid a wage at all, he got his expenses i.e. BFH He was at college, and school before that, now he says (we'll see) that he's off to Uni. Did anyone on here get paid for playing for a youth team? He signed with his parents a YOUTH team development contract, meaning in exchange for all the coaching and development, he would not sign for another club during that time. All youth teamsvhave a variation of this, like all organised anateur teans to stop people just moving to a club they feel is doing better Here is what the player quoted ------( I was on a professional, paid contract ) Like all fans I don't want to see the club pulled through the dirt and certainly not fined. However we have hit problems before over rules with under 21 players on the bench. If we are caught out again then the club needs to take a good look at it's self for the future. To me it seems crazy that it has been aloud to go this far already when it could have been cleared up quickly and painlessly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 It's not wrong I'm afraid. If the club have included payment into the contract then it legally changes the nature of the contract. And wrong again - the contracts are offered and signed on the basis that a player if they have a dispute goes through the court of arbitration for sport and not the ordinary courts - but again, that's effectively a gentleman's agreement. The contract can still be taken to the ordinary courts (such as Sheffield Utd did when they were relegated due to the Tevez incident), and there is absolutely nothing the SFA / SPFL etc. can do about it. And yes - restrictive covenants are prima facie illegal, they are only legally justifiable to the extent of protecting trade secrets or ensuring that somebody doesn't moonlight. Under pretty much every other scenario a REAL court (not CAS) will rule a restrictive covenant to be unenforceable. Look - I can tell you the legal rights and wrongs of all of this sort of stuff, you can choose to accept it or not, but there's no point arguing with me about it, I wouldn't post it unless it was accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) It's not wrong I'm afraid. If the club have included payment into the contract then it legally changes the nature of the contract. And wrong again - the contracts are offered and signed on the basis that a player if they have a dispute goes through the court of arbitration for sport and not the ordinary courts - but again, that's effectively a gentleman's agreement. The contract can still be taken to the ordinary courts (such as Sheffield Utd did when they were relegated due to the Tevez incident), and there is absolutely nothing the SFA / SPFL etc. can do about it. And yes - restrictive covenants are prima facie illegal, they are only legally justifiable to the extent of protecting trade secrets or ensuring that somebody doesn't moonlight. Under pretty much every other scenario a REAL court (not CAS) will rule a restrictive covenant to be unenforceable. Look - I can tell you the legal rights and wrongs of all of this sort of stuff, you can choose to accept it or not, but there's no point arguing with me about it, I wouldn't post it unless it was accurate. Sixth word, first line is the clincher! IFAnd they haven't end of. Edited October 8, 2014 by Lord Pityme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insaintee Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 (edited) It's not wrong I'm afraid. If the club have included payment into the contract then it legally changes the nature of the contract. And wrong again - the contracts are offered and signed on the basis that a player if they have a dispute goes through the court of arbitration for sport and not the ordinary courts - but again, that's effectively a gentleman's agreement. The contract can still be taken to the ordinary courts (such as Sheffield Utd did when they were relegated due to the Tevez incident), and there is absolutely nothing the SFA / SPFL etc. can do about it. And yes - restrictive covenants are prima facie illegal, they are only legally justifiable to the extent of protecting trade secrets or ensuring that somebody doesn't moonlight. Under pretty much every other scenario a REAL court (not CAS) will rule a restrictive covenant to be unenforceable. Look - I can tell you the legal rights and wrongs of all of this sort of stuff, you can choose to accept it or not, but there's no point arguing with me about it, I wouldn't post it unless it was accurate. How do Amazon get them into their zero hour contracts Edited October 8, 2014 by insaintee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurich_allan Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 How do Amazon get them into their zero hour contracts I don't understand what you mean... A zero hours contract means that you're not contracted to a particular number of hours per week, so they're not obliged to offer you work - but if they do they still have to pay in line with the minimum wage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorizaar Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 In summary, it sounds like a footballer picking and choosing which employment rights they want applied to their contracts. I doubt any of them would like the right to a weeks wages redundancy for each year of service applied for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 In summary, it sounds like a footballer picking and choosing which employment rights they want applied to their contracts. I doubt any of them would like the right to a weeks wages redundancy for each year of service applied for example. It sounds like he's studying medicine in Edinburgh, realised it won't fit with playing for a football team in Paisley, and Spartan's are trying to get him on the cheap without paying the development fee, but hoping to sell him on when his studies are finished and he wants a pro club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Sixth word, first line is the clincher! IF And they haven't end of. The IF you refer to ZA's post is If the club have included payment into the contract then it legally changes the nature of the contract. IF as you claim in your post, the club didn't include payment into the contract, what was the £1 relating to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2becks Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 FWIW it sounds to me like this contract is essentially a 'zero hours' deal, where he would be paid for time worked with the senior squads. Whilst these things are morally reprehensible they are unfortunately legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabuddies Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 I thought that all contracts were lodges with the relevant authorities (either SFA or SPFL probably) and scrutinised to ensure that they comply with the rules of the association. Surely anything like a breach of minimum wage legislation would stand out like a sore thumb and the club concerned would be held to account there and then. A fuss over nothing I think. If he wants to play amateur then I'm sure he is ineligible and for any other level he is our player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 The IF you refer to ZA's post is If the club have included payment into the contract then it legally changes the nature of the contract. IF as you claim in your post, the club didn't include payment into the contract, what was the £1 relating to? You'd have to ask Kieran or the Record as it won't be in his contract. Does anyone seriously believe that our club have £1 a month contracts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldwood Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Looks to me as if he has signed a professional youth contract when he was aged 16 This contact will differ from the normal youth contract that his fellow under 17 team mates, and every other youth player at St Mirren , would sign at the start of every season He would be allowed to be paid a wage under this contract. Most boys would have gone full time with the club at that point but it looks like when stayed on at school, got his highers rather than going in full time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donaldwood Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Regardless of what he was paid the club will have offered him the contract to take him to end of the 20s. From what I understand he is not your typical young player who when offered a full time contract would bite the clubs hand off. He must be a very bright boy off the park too if he meets the entry qualifications for the medical course. Youth players who sign full time contracts will be typically paid £80 to £100 a week so the club offering him £1 a week seems that they simply wanted to secure him on a contract so that if chose the football route he is contracted to them and if he didn't then this would provide some form of compensation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledfan Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 Without knowing the ins and outs it's hard to comment. However I believe that a business model where we have 16 full timers supplemented by part time contracts would be a win win for club and individuals. All youths should be part time and be getting a skill / or education before going full time. At least after football or if released players have a plan b for making a living. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 You'd have to ask Kieran or the Record as it won't be in his contract. Does anyone seriously believe that our club have £1 a month contracts? Ah, so there's no mention of money in his contract and this was just an informal payment he received. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted October 8, 2014 Report Share Posted October 8, 2014 You'd have to ask Kieran or the Record as it won't be in his contract. Does anyone seriously believe that our club have £1 a month contracts? Not being sarcastic here but have you read the article in full ? 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.