Saints Being Investigated By Hmrc....

[davidg]

I'm sure it's just me, but I'm not seeing a poll...

Top of the page.

37 people have voted on it.

First question... "Should SMFC pay the Living Wage to all direct club employees (incl Pro-Youth)"

[Lord Pityme]

the boy and his family were quite happy getting all the other perks he was getting from the club at the time of signing,,only when he wanted to renege on his contract to go to college,did he complain.COYS

What perks?

His gripe is the club wont let him turn out for his Uni side, isn't that just plain silly? By all means seek to recoup your training and development fees if he is playing paid football, but to have not even paid him a £1 a week, and then block him playing Racecourse league fitba makes no sense. Its just plain nasty.

[Lord Pityme]

Perhaps the first question in the poll should read. Should SMFC pay all 18 year old and above direct employees the living wage?

I take the point that apprentices whilst not playing first team football, are not yet fully contributing to the club, but at 18 if they are still on the books then they should be paid accordingly. Does the question need a re-vamp?

[nach0king]

The obvious question being how do these contracts get registered if they're wrong.

[Leicester Saint]

This is not a football point, this is a point of social justice, and decency.

No one employed in any job anywhere in Britain, be they a 16 year old or 60 year old, a trainee or an experienced employee, should be expected to earn less than a decent living wage. You can argue about what that figure should be, but it must be fair and decent and reflect what we would want and expect from a caring, human society.

No one in Britain should be employed on a contract which says they are to be paid £1 a week.

St.Mirren have an opportunity here to show themselves in a terribly good light by denouncing these type of contracts with immediate effect, and becoming the driving force behind fairness and good employment practice.

Come on Saints, make a dignified and principled stand on this, gain the upper hand on HMRC, but most importantly do the right thing by our youngsters.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

I'm sure it's just me, but I'm not seeing a poll...

it's not just you I won't vote

[Lord Pityme]

This is not a football point, this is a point of social justice, and decency.

No one employed in any job anywhere in Britain, be they a 16 year old or 60 year old, a trainee or an experienced employee, should be expected to earn less than a decent living wage. You can argue about what that figure should be, but it must be fair and decent and reflect what we would want and expect from a caring, human society.

No one in Britain should be employed on a contract which says they are to be paid £1 a week.

St.Mirren have an opportunity here to show themselves in a terribly good light by denouncing these type of contracts with immediate effect, and becoming the driving force behind fairness and good employment practice.

Come on Saints, make a dignified and principled stand on this, gain the upper hand on HMRC, but most importantly do the right thing by our youngsters.

This!

Make the change, pay the weans!

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Top of the page.

37 people have voted on it.

First question... "Should SMFC pay the Living Wage to all direct club employees (incl Pro-Youth)"

Not on my phone there isn't!

You forced me to get off my erse and log onto a pc to find it.

Makes more sense now...

[Dibbles old paperboy]

I believe that the £1 per week applied to Kieran Doran while he was at school full time and studying for his highers where he got 5 straight A's. Let's assume that throughout term time he was in school from 9am - 3pm and also had a fair amount of homework / coursework / revision to do to achieve those grades on top of how often he trained with St Mirren's youth set up.

Most Scottish clubs are struggling financially - this doesn't mean that clubs could not pay pro-youth better and reduce how much we pay out to the Marwoods. Balls etc we have had on the books. We don't charge gate money for pro-youth games, those guys get to use good facilities which would otherwise cost them a small fortune to access outside of proyouth set up and have coaching thrown in, and in the end most of them don't end up playing professional football as a career.

I don't think we should be paying £1, but if it were legal to pay only the minimum wage for them, I think that is fair enough if they are nowhere near being involved in first team set up.

[Lord Pityme]

I believe that the £1 per week applied to Kieran Doran while he was at school full time and studying for his highers where he got 5 straight A's. Let's assume that throughout term time he was in school from 9am - 3pm and also had a fair amount of homework / coursework / revision to do to achieve those grades on top of how often he trained with St Mirren's youth set up.

Most Scottish clubs are struggling financially - this doesn't mean that clubs could not pay pro-youth better and reduce how much we pay out to the Marwoods. Balls etc we have had on the books. We don't charge gate money for pro-youth games, those guys get to use good facilities which would otherwise cost them a small fortune to access outside of proyouth set up and have coaching thrown in, and in the end most of them don't end up playing professional football as a career.

I don't think we should be paying £1, but if it were legal to pay only the minimum wage for them, I think that is fair enough if they are nowhere near being involved in first team set up.

A lot of common sense there.

The moot points are, the club wants to extract the maximum amount possible for anyone signing a pro youth contract in exchange for £1, and they want to maintain those rights for up to ten years.

Do you think the club should pay pro youth minimum wage at least?

What about that unfair contract if someone (Doran) wants to chuck it and play non paid football?

[Kemp]

Kieran Doran was hardly working though, was he?

He was being developed as a player, getting an education. I don't see how we could shell out thousands on wages to everyone involved in the youth academy. Small clubs would simply need to stop investing in development.

However, it does seem a bit strange not to release him he said he wanted to go to University. I doubt the guy was ever going to command a transfer fee.

[faraway saint]

I believe that the £1 per week applied to Kieran Doran while he was at school full time and studying for his highers where he got 5 straight A's. Let's assume that throughout term time he was in school from 9am - 3pm and also had a fair amount of homework / coursework / revision to do to achieve those grades on top of how often he trained with St Mirren's youth set up.

Most Scottish clubs are struggling financially - this doesn't mean that clubs could not pay pro-youth better and reduce how much we pay out to the Marwoods. Balls etc we have had on the books. We don't charge gate money for pro-youth games, those guys get to use good facilities which would otherwise cost them a small fortune to access outside of proyouth set up and have coaching thrown in, and in the end most of them don't end up playing professional football as a career.

I don't think we should be paying £1, but if it were legal to pay only the minimum wage for them, I think that is fair enough if they are nowhere near being involved in first team set up.

But apprentices, as I would imagine these guys are, are not covered by the law regarding the minimum wage.

They are learning and, as such, come under different rules to reflect the fact they are not contributing to the business, St Mirren Football club, at this stage of their career.

IF it was £1 then this isn't right but all this talk, and bluster, about minimum wage is nonsense.

[Thorizaar]

However, it does seem a bit strange not to release him he said he wanted to go to University. I doubt the guy was ever going to command a transfer fee.

Under the current rules, a compensation fee would be due just like it would be for McGinn so releasing him from his registration would allow him to sign for another club with no fee. All very well saying he wants to play for his uni team but he is highly rated and could be tempted by other offers. Edited July 15, 2015 by Thorizaar

[Sonny]

There have been plenty of players who also attended University. Allegedly a few Clubs were interested in him even if only part-time for now.

[Stuart Dickson]

If the minimum wage is imposed throughout Scottish Football the game is f**ked. Lower level clubs simply cannot afford it. Clubs like Airdrie pay £50 per week to some of their senior professionals, not so long ago East Stirlingshire proudly boasted that they paid £10 per match to their players and only gave them travelling expenses to travel to away grounds and not back home again, and at Junior football level we've got players who are classed as semi pro who are playing for two free pairs of football boots a season. There are football managers in the senior Scottish game who get nowhere near the minimum wage never mind the living wage, never mind youth players.

The pro youth system hasn't been fit for purpose at any point during the last 10 years. I've spoke out about it regularly. It is simply wrong that clubs are signing players as young as 10 years old, dictating to them which friends they can and can't play football with in their spare time, and restricting their right to change clubs without compensation being paid - even if the lad was only signed to make up the numbers so that the pro youth team can play matches. Hopefully this HMRC investigation will call time on this ridiculous waste of money in the Scottish game and that the SFA will be forced to rethink it's so called Elite Performance programme which was never fit for purpose.

St Mirren certainly haven't covered themselves in glory throughout all of this. IIRC the news of this all broke back in October last year. If it's true the club hasn't paid the lad his contracted wage then surely St Mirren should have immediately released him to play for whoever he wanted and just buried the issue as an administrative mistake within the club. Instead the story has dragged on and on and now St Mirren will face the administrative and legal expense, as well as the cost of all the bad publicity. It's f**king stupid.

[Lord Pityme]

If the minimum wage is imposed throughout Scottish Football the game is f**ked. Lower level clubs simply cannot afford it. Clubs like Airdrie pay £50 per week to some of their senior professionals, not so long ago East Stirlingshire proudly boasted that they paid £10 per match to their players and only gave them travelling expenses to travel to away grounds and not back home again, and at Junior football level we've got players who are classed as semi pro who are playing for two free pairs of football boots a season. There are football managers in the senior Scottish game who get nowhere near the minimum wage never mind the living wage, never mind youth players.

The pro youth system hasn't been fit for purpose at any point during the last 10 years. I've spoke out about it regularly. It is simply wrong that clubs are signing players as young as 10 years old, dictating to them which friends they can and can't play football with in their spare time, and restricting their right to change clubs without compensation being paid - even if the lad was only signed to make up the numbers so that the pro youth team can play matches. Hopefully this HMRC investigation will call time on this ridiculous waste of money in the Scottish game and that the SFA will be forced to rethink it's so called Elite Performance programme which was never fit for purpose.

St Mirren certainly haven't covered themselves in glory throughout all of this. IIRC the news of this all broke back in October last year. If it's true the club hasn't paid the lad his contracted wage then surely St Mirren should have immediately released him to play for whoever he wanted and just buried the issue as an administrative mistake within the club. Instead the story has dragged on and on and now St Mirren will face the administrative and legal expense, as well as the cost of all the bad publicity. It's f**king stupid.

So you support the pro youth being paid £1 a week, even though they are constrained under contract from playing saturday morning league football for years, and the clubs stand to pick up any transfer/compo fees?

Where is that fair or just? If the clubs are worried about losing out on any future benefit then they should pay them at least as much as paperboys!

[Lord Pityme]

Under the current rules, a compensation fee would be due just like it would be for McGinn so releasing him from his registration would allow him to sign for another club with no fee. All very well saying he wants to play for his uni team but he is highly rated and could be tempted by other offers.

The release could be under a contract clause that reserved the right to claim transfer/compo/development fee if the player took paid football with Aa.N. other club during the term of his original contract. After that free agent.

[stlucifer]

So you support the pro youth being paid £1 a week, even though they are constrained under contract from playing saturday morning league football for years, and the clubs stand to pick up any transfer/compo fees?

Where is that fair or just? If the clubs are worried about losing out on any future benefit then they should pay them at least as much as paperboys!

Kids as young as 5 are taken on by professional football teams and are not allowed to play for any other boy's club. It's common practice.

[Lord Pityme]

Kids as young as 5 are taken on by professional football teams and are not allowed to play for any other boy's club. It's common practice.

That doesnt make it right or legal! There are laws already on the statute books to protect children, and I fear these may be used against SMFC and other clubs using these contracts. Once a govt body like HMRC are involved then it is impossible for them, the govt or those reponsible for child protection to 'look the other way' because its fitba..!

This will run and run with every govt dept, mp, media outlet getting involved.

Can i give you an example of how far it will go...

A few moons ago I worked for a national retailer who bought out a chain of 400 convenience stores, on completion of the deal we suddenly had about 1200 paperboys/girls to Tupe transfer, who were now entitled to holiday pay, H&S training, risk assessments, PPE, and the company had a duty to ensure their equipment i.e. Their bikes were road worthy and regularly checked.

Paperboys/girls getting holiday pay... Thats just the tip of the iceberg on this one.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Lord Pityme

[Stuart Dickson]

So you support the pro youth being paid £1 a week, even though they are constrained under contract from playing saturday morning league football for years, and the clubs stand to pick up any transfer/compo fees?

Where is that fair or just? If the clubs are worried about losing out on any future benefit then they should pay them at least as much as paperboys!

No. As I've said many times I'd scrap the pro youth structure which isn't fit for purpose.

[Lord Pityme]

No. As I've said many times I'd scrap the pro youth structure which isn't fit for purpose.

And in doing so SMFC, the Spfl, Sfa and all other clubs using these contracts will be duty bound to treat anyone who signs a contract as an employee. The gates are just about to burst open with. Employment Law Claim firms eager to represent every little Tommy who has been shackled with these contracts.

The bubble has burst!

[stlucifer]

That doesnt make it right or legal! There are laws already on the statute books to protect children, and I fear these may be used against SMFC and other clubs using these contracts. Once a govt body like HMRC are involved then it is impossible for them, the govt or those reponsible for child protection to 'look the other way' because its fitba..!

This will run and run with every govt dept, mp, media outlet getting involved.

Can i give you an example of how far it will go...

A few moons ago I worked for a national retailer who bought out a chain of 400 convenience stores, on completion of the deal we suddenly had about 1200 paperboys/girls to Tupe transfer, who were now entitled to holiday pay, H&S training, risk assessments, PPE, and the company had a duty to ensure their equipment i.e. Their bikes were road worthy and regularly checked.

Paperboys/girls getting holiday pay... Thats just the tip of the iceberg on this one.

The reason given, and there is logic to it, is to protect the lads from early burn out due to physical exhaustion as the club are investing in the kids by training them. I can see it from the clubs' point of view as it could fall to them if one of the kids were to be injured simply from overworking.

[Lord Pityme]

The reason given, and there is logic to it, is to protect the lads from early burn out due to physical exhaustion as the club are investing in the kids by training them. I can see it from the clubs' point of view as it could fall to them if one of the kids were to be injured simply from overworking.

The thing is employment law will see it from both sides, and child protection/exploitation from one side only.

Really i agree with most of what you say, there should be clauses to cover transfer, development & training fees due to the club. If the club had engaged the services of a HR professional to advise them how to draft a 'legal' fair and just contract they wouldn't be in this mess. Now a govt dept is involved a whole can of worms will be opened with lawyers and advisers setting hares off running left, right and centre.

Consider this... How few companies are investigated by HMRC over this type of issue. And of those very few SMFC take centre stage, the club will be seen as an example to be made of.

[Drew]

Consider this... How few companies are investigated by HMRC over this type of issue. And of those very few SMFC take centre stage, the club will be seen as an example to be made of.

That was the scenario with the old Rangers and EBTs, and that didn't quite go to plan.

[Lord Pityme]

That was the scenario with the old Rangers and EBTs, and that didn't quite go to plan.

Really? I thought the fact the only person they could sell it to put into admin and liquidation, got kicked out of the league, fined, directors banned, and is still trying to fight HMRC through the courts three years on. Still maybe being investigated by HMRC is a good thing?