Redundancies at the Academy

[Albanian Buddy]

1 hour ago, Rascal said:

AS. My view, for what it’s worth is that everybody is still getting used to the reality of what ownership means and how this works. Transparency is one issue. How much information should the board share? How much will the owners demand? Change is never easy.
 

Stirling Albion are an example of fan ownership where trust between the owners and the club board have largely broken down as far as I read. Lessons to be learned I think.

Meanwhile, our club is starting to make serious moves into being a community club. Well done all for that and I think that perhaps Kibble’s know how is helping turn ideas into reality.

So will you be continuing your smisa subscription without questioning the running of the club?

Surely it’s not too much too announce departures of key staff? They have been removed from the official club directory without any news on social media to even acknowledge the change or thank them for there service. The club is now majority owned by regular monthly contributions made over many years by fans like me and I assume you. The club seem happy to announce these appointments with great fanfare. Michelle Evans as Head of Well Being and Ali De Foy as Head of Brand and Marketing, but absolutely nothing when they leave. That’s not right in my opinion.

[Rascal]

49 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

So will you be continuing your smisa subscription without questioning the running of the club?

Surely it’s not too much too announce departures of key staff? They have been removed from the official club directory without any news on social media to even acknowledge the change or thank them for there service. The club is now majority owned by regular monthly contributions made over many years by fans like me and I assume you. The club seem happy to announce these appointments with great fanfare. Michelle Evans as Head of Well Being and Ali De Foy as Head of Brand and Marketing, but absolutely nothing when they leave. That’s not right in my opinion.

Hey. AS. I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a lot to learn in terms of managing the expectations of both the owners and directors. 
 

Announcing departures and thanking people for their contribution is good practice and unless an agreement made precludes it, then do it.

[Guest]

Hey @animal

Have you heard any further specific news about the academy? I see that @Albanian Buddy has posted that Michelle has left the club.

Edited August 18, 2022 by SuperSaints1877

[Albanian Buddy]

7 hours ago, Rascal said:

Hey. AS. I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a lot to learn in terms of managing the expectations of both the owners and directors. 
 

Announcing departures and thanking people for their contribution is good practice and unless an agreement made precludes it, then do it.

But you don’t answer the questions I posed to you?

I believe that you and I as shareholders are entitled to know when key staff leave the club (resign or redundant). There should be no legal issue with a simple two liner. “Michelle Evans has left the club today. We thank her for her service.”

You and I shareholders as members of smisa. Are you not?

[bazil85]

13 hours ago, linwood buddie said:

We will only get around the £125k we accepted that bid amount from Celtic.

Robinson said, don’t believe everything you read on social media about that & it included a McGinn level sell on.

[Albanian Buddy]

9 hours ago, Rascal said:

Meanwhile, our club is starting to make serious moves into being a community club. 

This sounds promising. The only things I heard the club doing is with the charity organisation of the club which receive grants and funding. I know they do a great Christmas lunch for OAPs and others. Haven’t heard much else so keen to know more.

The only serious moves I used to do in Paisley was at Toledo Junction. Is that still going?

[Guest]

I’m actually very concerned that the financial cost of running the academy may not be as good an investment as we had hoped. I don’t know how much the current cost of running the academy is every year however I think Stewart Gilmour said at an AGM when he was chairman saying it cost north of £1M every year. Please correct me if I have that figure wrong.

If we look at the rough income made on transfer sales since the academy started.

John McGinn has been the best return ever. St Mirren get 30% of any fee that Hibs get with their sell on (15%).

We received fees for Stephen McGinn, Kyle McAllister, Cammy McPherson, Lewis Morgan and Kenny McLean. I can’t remember too many others. Morgan and McLean were rejected by Rangers as youths so we can’t really claim to have reared them in our Academy structure. I don’t think Stephen McGinn was part of our youth academy as we know it now.

So would it be fair to say that the only real assets that the Academy has produced are John McGinn, Kyle McAllister and Cammy McPherson?. Did we not pay a fee to get Kyle back?

So if we keep the argument simple and discount Stephen McGinn and Barry Lavety as there was no youth academy structure in place as we know now.

Lewis Morgan and Kenny McLean were predominantly reared by Rangers. Let’s ignore them.

That leaves us with John McGinn and Kyle McAllister.

We sold Kyle McAllister to Derby. Then bought him back on no doubt a large wage and signing on fee. Let’s say that cancels out the fee received.

Cammy McPherson went for a nominal fee. Let’s say £30K.

Therefore we are left with John McGinn as the biggest return to date. Let’s just for arguments sake say we’ve received in total £1.5M for John McGinn.

I believe the Ralston Academy was completed in 2009. Roughly 13 years ago. 

So you can say that the return on investment so far on the Academy has been very poor. 

It has been measured that in the elite English Premier League academies only 1% make a first team start.

That is probably a similar return for St Mirren.

I think there is nothing better than seeing someone from the youth academy making their debut in the stripes, but what cost to the 99% shirt fillers whose dreams are shattered as they never made it.

There is a huge commitment made by so many kids and their families when they join an Elite Academy.

Not just making training and matches, but very strict diet restrictions that they have to follow and record.

These kids should be having fun with their friends playing football for enjoyment. 

Look back on the estimated transfer fees we received in the past for a handful of players that never went through the academy structure who we signed from Juniors or Lower divisions.

Archie Gemmill £13,000

Gordon McQueen £30,000

Frank McGarvey £300,000

Tony Fitzpatrick £280,000

Peter Weir £300,000

Billy Stark £80,000

Frank McAvennie £340,000

Ian Ferguson £850,000

Paul Lambert £250,000

Barry Lavety £200,000

I make this a total estimate of £2,643,000. Remember you would need to adjust these figures for inflation to see how much that money is worth today.

I would argue that we did far better scouting and bringing through players than the academy we have in place now.

How many of those players from the past would get in the team now?

[bazil85]

13 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

I’ve researched this and found out that Billy Gilmour was still under contract aged 15 when Chelsea and Rangers agreed a transfer fee (which included his development fee) and all manner of transfer add ons.
Gilmour did not officially join Chelsea until he was 16.

Regarding Gilmour add ons. £250K was paid to Rangers when he made his first full team start at Chelsea. There was a similar payment when Billy made 10 appearances. No doubt there was another payment when he made his full international debut. There’s also a 15% cut of any fee Chelsea receive in the future, which is where Rangers really stand to gain.

Rangers and Chelsea will also receive “development fees” if he moves clubs many times. Just like we have with John McGinn.

So this is a completely different scenario to what I asked for if Dylan leaves at the end of his contract. 

The club vice chair was quoted in the recent Smisa report https://www.smisa.net/news-archive/5-general-smisa-news/332-smisa-members-quarterly-meeting

“Celtic came in with an offer that reflected the compensation on offer that included a 30 percent sell-on clause.”

This says to me that if he leaves next summer having not signed a contract the development fee will be around £125K without any add ons.

From a recent report on Evening Times https://therealefl.co.uk/2019/06/18/oxford-united-linked-with-22-year-old-scotland-international/

“Motherwell would be entitled to a fee for the twenty-two-year-old under the FIFA solidarity mechanism, which states clubs must receive compensation for training players between their twelfth and twenty-third birthdays. The report claims under the rules, Motherwell are entitled to around £270,000 for the signature of the midfielder.”

There is no way that St Mirren would be getting any more than £125K for a player leaving aged 16/17 next summer. The figure that was the “agreed “ fee between Celtic and our club surely had to be as close to the development fee we are due if he does not sign a new contract or else our board are not doing their job right.

Do you still think we will get significantly more than £125K for Reid if he leaves in the summer? I’ve provided a lot of information. Hope you can offer a similar argument as I’d love to be proved wrong.
 

Why would it be £125k with no add ons if it was £125k with a 30% add on now? Every time Reid plays for a Scotland youth team or for St Mirren, it’s contributed to the owed development fee. 

This is where the logic doesn’t add up. Gilmour also refused to sign a contract & Rangers get £500k+ (when you add in all the add ons you mention & a sell on. Why on earth would St Mirren only get around 1/5 of that for a player with more development, first team experience & international exposure? 
 

My view is the 30% Celtic offered is a considerable make weight to offset the comp owed, same as with John McGinn to Hibs. If they could offer say £300k & no sell on, surely they would? They obviously have high hopes for the player.  
 

You have provided a lot of information & it backs up St Mirren being owed far more than £125k, either in add ons or sell ons. 

[Albanian Buddy]

5 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Robinson said, don’t believe everything you read on social media about that & it included a McGinn level sell on.

But is that not what I said previously? By not selling him in the last year of his contract we stand to lose any future sell on fees?

[bazil85]

1 minute ago, Albanian Buddy said:

But is that not what I said previously? By not selling him in the last year of his contract we stand to lose any future sell on fees?

Why did Rangers get a sell on for Billy Gilmour then as well as compensation? Why did we get a sell on for John McGinn as well as compensation? 
 

Sell one are used as make weights in deals to avoid up front cash. What evidence have you got that it vanishes at the end of his contract & we’d only get roughly 1/5 what Rangers got for a 16 year old who never kicked a ball? 

[Albanian Buddy]

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Why would it be £125k with no add ons if it was £125k with a 30% add on now?

Because he is out of contract in the summer of 2023.

I don’t think you understand how development fees work. What St Mirren were doing a few weeks ago was trying to negotiate the best return while he is under contract. That is known as a transfer fee to introduce sell on fees which is where the big money is to be had. 

If Dylan leaves without signing a new contract we will only get the development fee based on his time at the club. I don’t believe that any FIFA Solidarity fee takes into account Scotland youth call ups. Happy for you to prove me wrong on that.

[Albanian Buddy]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Why did Rangers get a sell on for Billy Gilmour then as well as compensation? Why did we get a sell on for John McGinn as well as compensation? 

Because they were still under contract. 

[bazil85]

6 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Because he is out of contract in the summer of 2023.

I don’t think you understand how development fees work. What St Mirren were doing a few weeks ago was trying to negotiate the best return while he is under contract. That is known as a transfer fee to introduce sell on fees which is where the big money is to be had. 

If Dylan leaves without signing a new contract we will only get the development fee based on his time at the club. I don’t believe that any FIFA Solidarity fee takes into account Scotland youth call ups. Happy for you to prove me wrong on that.

And as Robinson said in the interview. The deal this summer reflects the development. £125k & a make weight 30% sell on. That 30% make weight doesn’t vanish at the end of his contract. £125k would be an utter scandal & completely blow apart the model shown by people like Billy Gilmour. 
 

It also contradicts the manager. Included not in addition.   

“Celtic came in with an offer that reflected the compensation on offer that included a 30 percent sell-on clause.”

5 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Because they were still under contract. 

That’s incorrect, it was at the end of Mcginn’s contract when he moved to Hibs & Gilmour was also free to move when he turned 16 for compensation. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by bazil85

[Guest]

Just now, bazil85 said:

That 30% make weight doesn’t vanish at the end of his contract. 

Yes it does. 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Yes it does. 

Evidence please? 

[Albanian Buddy]

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

And as Robinson said in the interview. The deal this summer reflects the development. £125k & a make weight 30% sell on. That 30% make weight doesn’t vanish at the end of his contract. £125k would be an utter scandal & completely blow apart the model shown by people like Billy Gilmour. 
 

It also contradicts the manager. Included not in addition.   

“Celtic came in with an offer that reflected the compensation on offer that included a 30 percent sell-on clause.”

That’s incorrect, it was at the end of Mcginn’s contract when he moved to Hibs & Gilmour was also free to move when he turned 16 for compensation. 

Gilmour was under contract at aged 15 when Chelsea sign him. It was a transfer fee that Rangers were able to negotiate a sell on % and add ons for appearances etc.

If your argument stacks up that then when we “developed” for a short time Ross Stewart how much did we receive via Ross County when he was sold to Sunderland?

John McGinn contract situation is not as clear cut as you state. There was an agreement that  Stewart Gilmour negotiated with Hibs for 30% of any future transfer fees. Hibs negotiated with Villa a 15% sell on fee of which we receive 30% plus a development kick back.

Mcginn signed a 4 year deal with Hibs in July 2015 after both clubs agreed compensation. Surely there is no way that Hibs would relinquish 30% of any future fee with St Mirren if he was a free agent?

So how many other players have we released that we are due 30% sell on. I’ve never seen that in FIFA solidarity scheme. Please show me.

[Guest]

 

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Evidence please? 

Why then would St Mirren let Dylan Reid talk to Celtic if clubs agreed a compensation fee plus 30% sell on of future transfers if you say that he is worth more when he is out of contract? I’m sorry your logic is fcuked.

There is nothing in the FIFA solidarity mechanism that states a 30% sell on fee as part of development.

https://www.easportslaw.com/news/training-compensation-and-solidarity-mechanism

https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/41c272bcbc3b19df/original/c83ynehmkp62h5vgwg9g-pdf.pdf
 

There’s my evidence where is yours?

[bazil85]

18 minutes ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Gilmour was under contract at aged 15 when Chelsea sign him. It was a transfer fee that Rangers were able to negotiate a sell on % and add ons for appearances etc.

If your argument stacks up that then when we “developed” for a short time Ross Stewart how much did we receive via Ross County when he was sold to Sunderland?

John McGinn contract situation is not as clear cut as you state. There was an agreement that  Stewart Gilmour negotiated with Hibs for 30% of any future transfer fees. Hibs negotiated with Villa a 15% sell on fee of which we receive 30% plus a development kick back.

Mcginn signed a 4 year deal with Hibs in July 2015 after both clubs agreed compensation. Surely there is no way that Hibs would relinquish 30% of any future fee with St Mirren if he was a free agent?

So how many other players have we released that we are due 30% sell on. I’ve never seen that in FIFA solidarity scheme. Please show me.

When Gilmour turned 16 he was free to negotiate (in theory negotiations started earlier) , that’s why the deal completed at his birthday  the compensation paid reflects his years in Rangers academy upon negotiations between clubs  

Ross Stewart was allowed to leave for free/ nominal as he was deemed surplus by Alan Stubbs. We didn’t negotiate a sell on. As for development fee for his time at the club. We may have got something but it would be tiny. 

Mcginn was a free agent as in his contract expired but given his appearances for St Mirren & the cup win, the compensation owed was significant, as a compromise to the compensation, St Mirren & Hibs agreed around £300k & a 33% sell on make weight for the rest owed. St Mirren could of said no, we want it all in cash & Hibs would have had to pay up or lose him. This was actually rumoured at the time with McGinn supposedly considering going to America where we wouldn’t get any compensation because of the different federation. 
 

Robinson’s words that YOU quoted say it reflects the compensation owed. A 30% sell on is potentially huge, if that’s taken out the deal at the end of the contract, the compensation would surely have to be higher  

 

12 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

 

Why then would St Mirren let Dylan Reid talk to Celtic if clubs agreed a compensation fee plus 30% sell on of future transfers if you say that he is worth more when he is out of contract? I’m sorry your logic is fcuked.

There is nothing in the FIFA solidarity mechanism that states a 30% sell on fee as part of development.

https://www.easportslaw.com/news/training-compensation-and-solidarity-mechanism

https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/41c272bcbc3b19df/original/c83ynehmkp62h5vgwg9g-pdf.pdf
 

There’s my evidence where is yours?

That’s not exactly right though is it? Robinson has said that the offer made reflects what we’d be owed at the end of his contract in development. £125k & a 30% sell on. If that sell on isn’t there at the end of his contract, the comp would need to be higher. As said, 30% is huge regarding a transfer deal. 

I never claimed there was, I ALWAYS said it was make weight. That goes, it has to be replaced with some other form of comp. Either up front cash or add ons. Reid’s value to us isn’t going to be a fraction of what it is this summer at the end of his contract because of his age. 

Edited August 18, 2022 by bazil85

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

When Gilmour turned 16 he was free to negotiate (in theory negotiations started earlier) , that’s why the deal completed at his birthday  the compensation paid reflects his years in Rangers academy upon negotiations between clubs  

Ross Stewart was allowed to leave for free/ nominal as he was deemed surplus by Alan Stubbs. We didn’t negotiate a sell on. As for development fee for his time at the club. We may have got something but it would be tiny. 

Mcginn was a free agent as in his contract expired but given his appearances for St Mirren & the cup win, the compensation owed was significant, as a compromise to the compensation, St Mirren & Hibs agreed around £300k & a 33% sell on make weight for the rest owed. St Mirren could of said no, we want it all in cash & Hibs would have had to pay up or lose him. This was actually rumoured at the time with McGinn supposedly considering going to America where we wouldn’t get any compensation because of the different federation. 
 

Robinson’s words that YOU quoted say it reflects the compensation owed. A 30% sell on is potentially huge, if that’s taken out the deal at the end of the contract, the compensation would surely have to be higher  

 

That’s not exactly right though is it? Robinson has said that the offer made reflects what we’d be owed at the end of his contract in development. £125k & a 30% sell on. If that sell on isn’t there at the end of his contract, the comp would need to be higher. As said, 30% is huge regarding a transfer deal. 

I never claimed there was, I ALWAYS said it was make weight. That goes, it has to be replaced with some other form of comp. Either up front cash or add ons. Reid’s value to us isn’t going to be a fraction of what it is this summer at the end of his contract because of his age. 

Bazil you are talking shite. You have offered no factual counter evidence from FIFA to argue you case. You are a 🤡.

Rangers agreed a fee with Chelsea when Gilmour was 15. Gilmour was then free to talk to Chelsea and agreed his terms. The clubs then agreed that he would leave in the summer when he was 16.

There is plenty of evidence to back up exactly what I have said here. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10870337/billy-gilmour-completes-move-to-chelsea-from-rangers“Chelsea have signed Rangers' highly-rated 15-year-old midfielder Billy Gilmour, who has come through the Scottish club's academy system.”

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/soccer-transfers/story/3019319/chelsea-closing-in-on-rangers-teenager-billy-gilmour-sources “Chelsea are set to beat a host of Europe's top clubs to the signing of Rangers youngster Billy Gilmour, sources from both clubs have told ESPN FC.Scotland under-16 midfielder Gilmour is regarded as one of the best youth talents in Europe after impressing for club and country in the last 12 months.Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Barcelona and Bayern Munich have all been credited with an interest in Gilmour after sending scouts to watch the 15-year-old in action. Sources have told ESPN FC that Gilmour spent last weekend in London for talks at Chelsea and to have a look around the club's facilities as the Premier League leaders look to bring the the player to Stamford Bridge.Gilmour is under contract at Rangers until the end of the season, but Chelsea have offered the Scottish club £500,000 to sign the player now rather than wait until he is 16 and try and land him on a compensation fee.”

[bazil85]

10 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Bazil you are talking shite. You have offered no factual counter evidence from FIFA to argue you case. You are a 🤡.

Rangers agreed a fee with Chelsea when Gilmour was 15. Gilmour was then free to talk to Chelsea and agreed his terms. The clubs then agreed that he would leave in the summer when he was 16.

There is plenty of evidence to back up exactly what I have said here. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10870337/billy-gilmour-completes-move-to-chelsea-from-rangers“Chelsea have signed Rangers' highly-rated 15-year-old midfielder Billy Gilmour, who has come through the Scottish club's academy system.”

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/soccer-transfers/story/3019319/chelsea-closing-in-on-rangers-teenager-billy-gilmour-sources “Chelsea are set to beat a host of Europe's top clubs to the signing of Rangers youngster Billy Gilmour, sources from both clubs have told ESPN FC.Scotland under-16 midfielder Gilmour is regarded as one of the best youth talents in Europe after impressing for club and country in the last 12 months.Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Barcelona and Bayern Munich have all been credited with an interest in Gilmour after sending scouts to watch the 15-year-old in action. Sources have told ESPN FC that Gilmour spent last weekend in London for talks at Chelsea and to have a look around the club's facilities as the Premier League leaders look to bring the the player to Stamford Bridge.Gilmour is under contract at Rangers until the end of the season, but Chelsea have offered the Scottish club £500,000 to sign the player now rather than wait until he is 16 and try and land him on a compensation fee.”

Well, hopefully we don’t find out & he signs a new contract. If he doesn’t & leaves for £125k next summer (which I highly doubt if he continues to attract interest) I’ll be the first to put my hands up 👍

[bazil85]

12 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Bazil you are talking shite. You have offered no factual counter evidence from FIFA to argue you case. You are a 🤡.

Rangers agreed a fee with Chelsea when Gilmour was 15. Gilmour was then free to talk to Chelsea and agreed his terms. The clubs then agreed that he would leave in the summer when he was 16.

There is plenty of evidence to back up exactly what I have said here. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11668/10870337/billy-gilmour-completes-move-to-chelsea-from-rangers“Chelsea have signed Rangers' highly-rated 15-year-old midfielder Billy Gilmour, who has come through the Scottish club's academy system.”

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/soccer-transfers/story/3019319/chelsea-closing-in-on-rangers-teenager-billy-gilmour-sources “Chelsea are set to beat a host of Europe's top clubs to the signing of Rangers youngster Billy Gilmour, sources from both clubs have told ESPN FC.Scotland under-16 midfielder Gilmour is regarded as one of the best youth talents in Europe after impressing for club and country in the last 12 months.Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Barcelona and Bayern Munich have all been credited with an interest in Gilmour after sending scouts to watch the 15-year-old in action. Sources have told ESPN FC that Gilmour spent last weekend in London for talks at Chelsea and to have a look around the club's facilities as the Premier League leaders look to bring the the player to Stamford Bridge.Gilmour is under contract at Rangers until the end of the season, but Chelsea have offered the Scottish club £500,000 to sign the player now rather than wait until he is 16 and try and land him on a compensation fee.”

Oh and by the way, you’ve just shared something that contradicts your point. 
 

“but Chelsea have offered the Scottish club £500,000 to sign the player now rather than wait until he is 16 and try and land him on a compensation fee.”

That was in December 2016, six months before he went to Chelsea after turning 16.

In other words they didn’t sign him ‘now’ (December 2016). They DID wait until he turned 16 & landed him on a fee negotiated as equivalent to compensation. Why would Chelsea pay more when he turned 16 if they could ‘land him on a compensation fee’ the reason? The fee they paid was in line with the compensation for him at 16. 

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Reid’s value to us isn’t going to be a fraction of what it is this summer at the end of his contract because of his age. 

Ok Bazil. I personally don’t think Dylan Reid is going to sign a new contract. I think he will leave us at the end of this season (unless he goes before and the club can insert a sell on agreement).

Let’s say I’m right. Dylan’s birthday is in March so he will be 18 once his current contract expires. Given all the evidence I have provided on FIFA solidarity payments I believe that the compensation due will work at follows- 

Solidarity payments are where the new club where he signs after he leaves us is to distribute 5% of this compensatory amount to all the clubs where this player has played between the age of 12 and 23. This distribution of monies is meant as a solidarity contribution to the clubs involved in the training and education of the player.

When a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, with the exception of Training Compensation, paid to his Former Club shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and distributed by the New Club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education over the years (calculated pro rata if less than one year) he was registered with the relevant club(s) between the Seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthdays, as follows:

• Season of 12th birthday: 5%
• Season of 13th birthday: 5%
• Season of 14th birthday: 5%
• Season of 15th birthday: 5%
• Season of 16th birthday: 10%
• Season of 17th birthday: 10%
• Season of 18h birthday: 10%
• Season of 19th birthday: 10%
• Season of 20th birthday: 10%
• Season of 21st birthday: 10%
• Season of 22nd birthday: 10%
• Season of 23rd birthday: 10%
• Total = 100% 

Only England, France, Germany, Holland, Spain and Italy have Category One clubs.

The table below from FIFA is from 2019. It’s probably gone up now, but I can’t find it.

https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/17224a13a232cbcc/original/qcbskojvmdcvhcysjzfl-pdf.pdf

I don’t know whether St Mirren are a category 2 or 3 club. Maybe you can tell us?

if Saints are Category trained by a UEFA category 2 club for the years 12 until 18, and signs after expiry of his current contract the training compensation will be calculated like this:

 12th until 18th birthday: 6 X EUR 30,000 (category 3) = EUR 180,000 circa £150,000

Or 

12th until 18th birthday: 6 X EUR 60,000 (category 2) = EUR 360,000 circa £300,000

Now I believe we must be category 3 and chose to negotiate a compensation fee of £125,000 plus 30% future sell on fee with Celtic as that is much closer to the FIFA compensation fee due at end of his contract. It is imperative that St Mirren offer him a new contract 60days before his current one expires to get the solidarity payment.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Oh and by the way, you’ve just shared something that contradicts your point. 
 

“but Chelsea have offered the Scottish club £500,000 to sign the player now rather than wait until he is 16 and try and land him on a compensation fee.”

That was in December 2016, six months before he went to Chelsea after turning 16.

In other words they didn’t sign him ‘now’ (December 2016). They DID wait until he turned 16 & landed him on a fee negotiated as equivalent to compensation. Why would Chelsea pay more when he turned 16 if they could ‘land him on a compensation fee’ the reason? The fee they paid was in line with the compensation for him at 16. 

 

Bullshit. How many times do you have to be told you are wrong?

Chelsea and rangers agreed compensation and sell ones and appearance add ons when he was 15. 🤦‍♂️ 

[glen]

23 hours ago, Albanian Buddy said:

Club directory no longer lists Michelle Evans who was Head of Club Well-being & Development. Did she resign or was she pushed? We still don’t have a club doctor since our long standing doctor Wong resigned after issues following Kibble’s involvement. The club advertised for a new doctor last October. https://www.stmirren.com/club-news/4151-we-are-recruiting-for-the-position-of-club-doctor with final applications by 3 November 2021. Looks like @animal is onto something here. 

It, seems so. I heard that several coaches have now left the academy and the ticket office manager has also quietly 'left’.

 

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, glen said:

It, seems so. I heard that several coaches have now left the academy and the ticket office manager has also quietly 'left’.

 

Several?

How many did we have?