Jump to content

Redundancies at the Academy


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, bazil85 said:

We can speculate until the cows come home. There is no doubt we have fans on here who usually assume/ fear the worst. 
 

For me, we still seem to have an extremely successful academy with several youth players in & around Scotland squads, attracting attention elsewhere. Dylan Reid’s decision also suggests to me, our more experienced youth prospects still see St Mirren as a great pathway club. 

I’m sorry for responding to @bazil85 who first brought up Dylan Reid into a discussion about redundancies at the academy. It’s usual deflection tactics by the St Mirren-Kibble PR department. Fcuking clown 🤡 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

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? 

I’ve clearly demonstrated how the FIFA Solidarity payments work. I’ve told you that Chelsea agreed a compensation fee and additional payments when Gilmour was 15 and under contract at Rangers.

St mirren must offer Dylan Reid a new contract 60days prior to the ending of his current one to qualify for solidarity payments.

What evidence do you have that fifa solidarity payments include a 30% sell on fees if Dylan Reid does leave without agreeing a new deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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?

@bazil85 Where is your FIFA evidence that 30% sell on fee stays in place if a player leaves out of contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 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’.

 

Campbell Munro was our stadium announcer/DJ and then became “Head of Ticketing”. I’m sure it was a different announcer at Ross county game.

Campbell is no longer listed on the club directory. https://www.stmirren.com/club/contacting-st-mirren/club-directory
 
He was appointed head of ticketing in July 2021. 

 

A755E6B8-1D7D-4664-B3A7-458D8E12509B.thumb.jpeg.df2c8b444cc7ceab355b600f6cb44ef7.jpeg

Campbell is a great guy who many of us have known for many years following Saints home and away.

 Sad times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

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

4BD7C0CC-7E4A-46DE-8EBE-07C8052ACC29.thumb.jpeg.616462f572310c246f590b8f7ba474b2.jpeg

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.

I think you’re getting mixed up on a few different points. If compensation fees are capped at these levels by FIFA, how did Fulham get a package of £4.3 million for Harvey Elliott? 
 

Not sure why you’re sharing the comp we would be due for future sell ons. Again the same with John McGinn if he leaves Villa (as well as a percentage of the sell on clause). Nothing to do with the comp for a young player who’s contract expires & if we have offered a new deal to keep him. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bazil85 said:

I think you’re getting mixed up on a few different points. If compensation fees are capped at these levels by FIFA, how did Fulham get a package of £4.3 million for Harvey Elliott? 
 

Not sure why you’re sharing the comp we would be due for future sell ons. Again the same with John McGinn if he leaves Villa (as well as a percentage of the sell on clause). Nothing to do with the comp for a young player who’s contract expires & if we have offered a new deal to keep him. 
 

Where is you FIFA evidence to the question I posed?

Less of this whataboutery. I’ve been crystal clear presenting my case with hard facts from FIFA the governing body. 🤡 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

I’ve clearly demonstrated how the FIFA Solidarity payments work. I’ve told you that Chelsea agreed a compensation fee and additional payments when Gilmour was 15 and under contract at Rangers.

St mirren must offer Dylan Reid a new contract 60days prior to the ending of his current one to qualify for solidarity payments.

What evidence do you have that fifa solidarity payments include a 30% sell on fees if Dylan Reid does leave without agreeing a new deal?

Moot point, they definitely will offer a contract. 
 

I never claimed it includes a 30% sell in. Yet again you've completely missed the point that it’s a MAKE WEIGHT. My point is, if a club doesn’t want to offer a sell on, the fee will need to be more than £125k. Celtic offered the 30% to avoid extra up front to match the compensation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Where is you FIFA evidence to the question I posed?

Less of this whataboutery. I’ve been crystal clear presenting my case with hard facts from FIFA the governing body. 🤡 

You’ve not, you’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying about the 30% Celtic offered. I have explained it to you multiple times. 

 

Whataboutery? You claimed comp was capped & I shared an example FAR above your supposed caps. So again, why did Liverpool have to pay over £4 million in a package? 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Moot point, they definitely will offer a contract. 
 

I never claimed it includes a 30% sell in. Yet again you've completely missed the point that it’s a MAKE WEIGHT. My point is, if a club doesn’t want to offer a sell on, the fee will need to be more than £125k. Celtic offered the 30% to avoid extra up front to match the compensation. 

Bazil. This is St Mirren we are talking about. Anything’s possible. It’s not the first time we have overlooked certain terms and conditions of agreements. As an example we were in breach of Health & Safety regulations as we did not service our stadium standby generator for a significant period of time. 

I’ve clearly presented workings on what I believe St Mirren will be due if he leaves after expiration of his current contract.

You present an alternative financial narrative. Go on let’s see your workings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Bazil. This is St Mirren we are talking about. Anything’s possible. It’s not the first time we have overlooked certain terms and conditions of agreements. As an example we were in breach of Health & Safety regulations as we did not service our stadium standby generator for a significant period of time. 

I’ve clearly presented workings on what I believe St Mirren will be due if he leaves after expiration of his current contract.

You present an alternative financial narrative. Go on let’s see your workings?

Now that is whataboutery. If Reid isn’t  going to sign a new deal & is to move to a bigger club in the summer, we won’t forget to offer him a deal within the parameters 😂

Sure, here’s my alternative. 
Celtic offered St Mirren £125k & a 30% sell on. Our MANAGER said that is comparable to the comp we’d be owed next year. I therefore think the comp will be COMPARABLE next year.
 

Either £125k & a 30% sell on or if there’s no sell on/ smaller percentage, a higher value of cash will need to be paid to compensate. 
 

Of course this all depends on his continued development & interest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You’ve not, you’ve completely misunderstood what I was a saying about the 30% Celtic offered. I have explained it to you multiple times. 

 

Whataboutery? You claimed comp was capped & I shared an example FAR above your supposed caps. So again, why did Liverpool have to pay over £4 million in a package? 

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12213077/harvey-elliott-liverpool-ordered-to-pay-fulham-record-compensation-fee-for-16-year-old

Harvey Elliott: Liverpool ordered to pay Fulham record compensation fee for 16-year-old

Liverpool signed Harvey Elliott as a 16-year-old in 2019 but could not agree a fee with Fulham; the Premier League champions had reportedly offered around £750,000 in compensation, while Fulham originally wanted around £8m; Fulham set to receive in region of £4m once add-ons met. 
 

You really are not understanding this are you?

There is no way that the FIFA solidarity payment amounts to £8M (what Fulham wanted) or what the transfer tribunal told Liverpool to pay (£4M). 
 

4B6DC7B3-0F70-4C44-BCBE-B8661696E141.thumb.jpeg.d5982a3c061bf9ce1670b705d359f06b.jpeg
 

If Harvey Elliot left out of contract at 16. The fifa solidarity payment due would only have been around EUR 360,000 based on 4 years development assuming he was with Fulham from age 12.

Are you aged 12 and still living with your mum?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12213077/harvey-elliott-liverpool-ordered-to-pay-fulham-record-compensation-fee-for-16-year-old

Harvey Elliott: Liverpool ordered to pay Fulham record compensation fee for 16-year-old

Liverpool signed Harvey Elliott as a 16-year-old in 2019 but could not agree a fee with Fulham; the Premier League champions had reportedly offered around £750,000 in compensation, while Fulham originally wanted around £8m; Fulham set to receive in region of £4m once add-ons met. 
 

You really are not understanding this are you?

There is no way that the FIFA solidarity payment amounts to £8M (what Fulham wanted) or what the transfer tribunal told Liverpool to pay (£4M). 
 

4B6DC7B3-0F70-4C44-BCBE-B8661696E141.thumb.jpeg.d5982a3c061bf9ce1670b705d359f06b.jpeg
 

If Harvey Elliot left out of contract at 16. The fifa solidarity payment due would only have been around EUR 360,000 based on 4 years development assuming he was with Fulham from age 12.

Are you aged 12 and still living with your mum?

 

You’re having a nightmare here. The situations in contract are comparable. Elliot’s contract was up. Reid’s contract would also be up. 
 

It was determined the comp value that was fair to Fulham was over £4 million. If St Mirren & a new club can’t agree comp for Reid, it would go to tribunal to be settled. 
 

If Fulham were only entitled to this FIFA solidarity payments, why on earth did they get paid far more? 
 

I’m right here that compensation isn’t bound by what you’re suggesting, Elliot is evidence for this & instead of accepting it, you’re lashing out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

You’re having a nightmare here. The situations in contract are comparable. Elliot’s contract was up. Reid’s contract would also be up. 
 

determined the comp value that was fair to Fulham was over £4 million. If St Mirren & a new club can’t agree

Are you honestly saying that St Mirren would be due a fee far in excess of £150K?

Are you actually suggesting that if Liverpool signed Reid out of contract in 2023 that St Mirren would be able to take them to a tribunal for a transfer that never took place?

When Elliot signed from Fulham he was not out of contract.

And you are saying I’m having a nightmare? Jeezo. What does your mum put in your Horlicks at night?

You do still live with your mum don’t you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Are you honestly saying that St Mirren would be due a fee far in excess of £150K?

Are you actually suggesting that if Liverpool signed Reid out of contract in 2023 that St Mirren would be able to take them to a tribunal for a transfer that never took place?

When Elliot signed from Fulham he was not out of contract.

And you are saying I’m having a nightmare? Jeezo. What does your mum put in your Horlicks at night?

You do still live with your mum don’t you?

I think we’d get between £300k-£500k if he is still such a prospect next summer & a club isn’t looking to offer such a generous sell on clause. 

You are having a nightmare & you’re lashing out with the mum comments it’s quite sad you’d stoop so low in an argument. 

28FE989E-A91B-4B4C-8CC0-80C2DCBD0FFF.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Are you honestly saying that St Mirren would be due a fee far in excess of £150K?

Are you actually suggesting that if Liverpool signed Reid out of contract in 2023 that St Mirren would be able to take them to a tribunal for a transfer that never took place?

When Elliot signed from Fulham he was not out of contract.

And you are saying I’m having a nightmare? Jeezo. What does your mum put in your Horlicks at night?

You do still live with your mum don’t you?

The article goes on to discuss Danny Ings, suppose he also wasn’t out of contract when clubs had to agree compensation for an out of contract player under 24 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bazil85

I’ve just spoken to Jim Gillespie (Director responsible for Academy) and Keith Lasley (COO) and they both say you are talking 💩 💩 💩

They have said to me that the are wanting nothing more to do with you and your PR duties on B&W army.

Nothing will formally be announced by the club as they never did so with Head of Well being & Head of Ticket Office. 
 

E18AE37A-F42F-4A3C-BD8A-94AF2E09E7B6.gif.d9bbd488b3bf745265991ba2a6ae0518.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think we’d get between £300k-£500k if he is still such a prospect next summer & a club isn’t looking to offer such a generous sell on clause. 

Are you really saying that St Mirren would be able to insert a sell on % instruction in future contract?

So why would Jim Gillespie state at a public meeting that the figure negotiated with Celtic was £125K but with sell on fee if you are saying that we would get more money if he leaves in the summer of 2023?

Surely St Mirren would not have let Dylan Reid, his parents and his agent speak to Celtic if we can get more money next year.

🙈

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think we’d get between £300k-£500k if he is still such a prospect next summer & a club isn’t looking to offer such a generous sell on clause. 

You are having a nightmare & you’re lashing out with the mum comments it’s quite sad you’d stoop so low in an argument. 

 

@bazil85 what comments have I made about your mum that are causing you distress?

I just asked if you still lived with your mum and jokingly suggested that she might be putting hallucinogenic drugs in your nighttime drink.

Did I say anything remotely controversial?

Do you still stay with your mum?

Will she be due any compensation when you move out?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Are you really saying that St Mirren would be able to insert a sell on % instruction in future contract?

So why would Jim Gillespie state at a public meeting that the figure negotiated with Celtic was £125K but with sell on fee if you are saying that we would get more money if he leaves in the summer of 2023?

Surely St Mirren would not have let Dylan Reid, his parents and his agent speak to Celtic if we can get more money next year.

🙈

We did with John McGinn because the compensation we were owed couldn’t/ wasn’t willing to be reached all in cash. It would be a balancing act, more money up front = less sell on. 
 

Robinson said the money offered INCLUDING the sell on was comparable to what we would likely get at the end of his contract. Given he doesn’t seem to be in the starting 11 plans this year & if he was going to go anyway, it made sense this summer to accept the deal (now the details are fully known).
 

What I am saying though is we would get more money if there’s no sell on, Robinson said it was INCLUDED in the likely valuation. That doesn’t mean the overall valuation of how the deal is structured is higher. He could go in 2 seasons for £15 million & without a sell on we would be in a worse position, even though we had got more cash upfront. 
 

I mean… do you understand this at all?  If a club says ‘we’ll give you £350k or we’ll give you £125k with a sell on’ you realise there’s a decision to be made there right? It really seems like you don’t understand at all the benefits of sell ons & less cash from your last paragraph. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

@bazil85 what comments have I made about your mum that are causing you distress?

I just asked if you still lived with your mum and jokingly suggested that she might be putting hallucinogenic drugs in your nighttime drink.

Did I say anything remotely controversial?

Do you still stay with your mum?

Will she be due any compensation when you move out?

 

They aren’t causing me distress, it’s just you getting upset & lashing out regarding where I live. It’s quite sad that’s the level you’d stoop to but it says more about your personality than anything imo. 
 

You are clearly doing that instead of accepting I have given real life end of contract examples that show you’re wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

They aren’t causing me distress, it’s just you getting upset & lashing out regarding where I live. It’s quite sad that’s the level you’d stoop to but it says more about your personality than anything imo. 
 

You are clearly doing that instead of accepting I have given real life end of contract examples that show you’re wrong. 

You have offered no supporting evidence from the FIFA regulations. 

I’m not lashing out. That’s your standard go to when you are losing an arguement. No one can have a debate with you are your arguments do stand up. I’ve asked you to supply evidence from the FIFA directives backing up your opinion. I even submitted the links. Do some research on FIFA website and show where you you are getting these compensation (not transfer) tribunals and sell on percentages. 

So it’s down to my personality as to whether I’m allowed to ask you a question on whether you still live with your mum.

FFS 🤦‍♂️ 

It’s a simple enough question. Does she take in lodgers? Given your redundancy from St Mirren PR department then rent money from her boy will soon run out. I’d fancy having this debate in question over the breakfast table. I hope she does a good fry up. 🍳 🥓 ️ Just on weekends mind. 

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...