Wage cut for players and staff (Statement on 24/4)

[Pasquale for King]

8 minutes ago, sjh1874 said:

see above post re selection criteria

So it can be done in your opinion?

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Why? Are they different from you and I?

No. But, in normal circumstances, the club might well find itself out of FIFA authorised Competitions like the SPL and Scottish cup. 

[baxterd1974]

14 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Are we playing at all? You can man up when you are in a better place financially.

We have 38 first team players, taking that down to 30 would be perfectly acceptable don’t you think? 

Has nothing to do with what I think.  The comparison was being made between business world redundancies and football.  I simply explained.  You won't get any argument from me about us having too many players on the books. 

[luckydug]

32 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Well Budge better start begging the benefactor for another cheque so she can start paying off all those contracts. 

By the time the fans have finished with them they will be begging for a move, any move. 

This will not be forgiven or forgotten. 

[Pasquale for King]

Just now, davemclaren said:

No. But, in normal circumstances, the club might well fund itself out of FIFA authorised Competitions like the SPL and Scottish cup. 

That’s restriction of trade, I mentioned that up there, it’s illegal.

[Shanks]

2 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Why did you choose that name out of interest?

 

As I posted above, I was a teenager.  Me and my mates liked the film braveheart and we would quote things from the film, I've never really thought about it but can see why it would upset some people and it probably explains a few reactions I've had on here over the 14 years

 

It's quite ironic that I am a big SNP supporter as well

 

Should probably think about changing it but it's something I've not really bothered about.

[Pasquale for King]

Just now, baxterd1974 said:

Has nothing to do with what I think.  The comparison was being made between business world redundancies and football.  I simply explained.  You won't get any argument from me about us having too many players on the books. 

I wasn’t looking for an argument just asking if cutting the numbers of your staff is an acceptable reason to make redundancies, I think it is.

[davemclaren]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

That’s restriction of trade, I mentioned that up there, it’s illegal.

So that’s a court case to win while you have no income.  No club has ever done that yet, that I know about. 

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, Longshanks said:

 

As I posted above, I was a teenager.  Me and my mates liked the film braveheart and we would quote things from the film, I've never really thought about it but can see why it would upset some people and it probably explains a few reactions I've had on here over the 14 years

 

It's quite ironic that I am a big SNP supporter as well

 

Should probably think about changing it but it's something I've not really bothered about.

Just put wank in brackets after it 😜

[Pasquale for King]

Just now, davemclaren said:

So that’s a court case to win while you have no income.  No club has ever done that yet, that I know about. 

Another point I made up there, someone always has to be the first to do it. We threatened legal action over relegation.

[sjh1874]

5 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

So it can be done in your opinion?

 

Yes the squad could all be put on notice and cuts made accordingly. Redundancy payments based on the salaries paid to each individual, however in normal practice (non football contact) someone employed for less than two years would get nothing. I would imagine redundancy payments would apply to very few in the scenario. 

[Squirt]

24 minutes ago, baxterd1974 said:

Because in the real world you make a position redundant, not a person.  Are we going to play with less players?

If the league is suspended and no games are getting played a footballers job is redundant until they are required again surely? 
 

I’ve been made redundant before but there’s still some guy who’s got the job I used to have now. 

Edited April 2, 2020 by Squirt

[Footballfirst]

3 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

All the ones we paid on coming out of administration so we could play again.  I don’t have a list but @Footballfirst could likely help clarify what that covered?

 

I still have records from Creditors reports when the club went into administration. 

 

There was a list of 113 players and staff who were not paid for 18 days between 1-18 June 2013. The total due was £132k.  The 21 players involved were due £87,737.73 of that amount.  Gary Locke with £5.6k had the highest figure of the non playing staff. 

 

Those 21 players remained contracted to the club during the administration period, with the amounts due to individual players ranging from £11k (Hamill, Stevenson, McDonald) down to £771.

 

In addition some players were made either redundant or their contracts expired at the end season 2012/13, so appeared in the main list of creditors.  The largest, by some distance was Andy Driver, who was due £115k, then Sutton £20.5k, Webster £16.2k, Barr £14.6k, Novikovas £13.2 and Zaliukas £11.1k.

 

Other football creditors included Liverpool £46.6k, Kaunas £13.4k, Stenhousemuir £12k, the SFA £5.6k and various amounts due to football agents.

 

The total amount payable to football creditors was reported as £535k.   The first £1m tranche of FOH cash was used to pay those "football debts". It was later suggested that Andy Driver opted not to receive all or some of the cash due to him, so all credit to him for doing so. 

[davemclaren]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

Another point I made up there, someone always has to be the first to do it. We threatened legal action over relegation.

Yip. That would be interesting as well. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 minutes ago, Longshanks said:

 

As I posted above, I was a teenager.  Me and my mates liked the film braveheart and we would quote things from the film, I've never really thought about it but can see why it would upset some people and it probably explains a few reactions I've had on here over the 14 years

 

It's quite ironic that I am a big SNP supporter as well

 

Should probably think about changing it but it's something I've not really bothered about.

It does seem a bit weird that an SNP supporter would have him as a username! A bit like a Jew idiolising Hitler!

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

 

I still have records from Creditors reports when the club went into administration. 

 

There was a list of 113 players and staff who were not paid for 18 days between 1-18 June 2013. The total due was £132k.  The 21 players involved were due £87,737.73 of that amount.  Gary Locke with £5.6k had the highest figure of the non playing staff. 

 

Those 21 players remained contracted to the club during the administration period, with the amounts due to individual players ranging from £11k (Hamill, Stevenson, McDonald) down to £771.

 

In addition some players were made either redundant or their contracts expired at the end season 2012/13, so appeared in the main list of creditors.  The largest, by some distance was Andy Driver, who was due £115k, then Sutton £20.5k, Webster £16.2k, Barr £14.6k, Novikovas £13.2 and Zaliukas £11.1k.

 

Other football creditors included Liverpool £46.6k, Kaunas £13.4k, Stenhousemuir £12k, the SFA £5.6k and various amounts due to football agents.

 

The total amount payable to football creditors was reported as £535k.   The first £1m tranche of FOH cash was used to pay those "football debts". It was later suggested that Andy Driver opted not to receive all or some of the cash due to him, so all credit to him for doing so. 

Thanks. 

[annushorribilis III]

18 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

Indeed, it says that in the pictures I posted if anyone fancies reading them.

Instead of the massive screen grab - which part is relevant cheers. As said by another poster, if a company makes a POSITION redundant it cannot rehire for the same position. Or rather it can, but with legal consequences.

[Squirt]

10 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

No. But, in normal circumstances, the club might well find itself out of FIFA authorised Competitions like the SPL and Scottish cup. 

Take them to court for restriction of trade maybe be an option in that case? 
 

Mentioned already

Edited April 2, 2020 by Squirt

[Hungry hippo]

42 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

Well Budge better start begging the benefactor for another cheque so she can start paying off all those contracts. 

 

No need to pay anyone's contract off if we are able to suspend contracts until income is coming in again.

[baxterd1974]

5 minutes ago, Squirt said:

If the league is suspended and no games are getting played a footballers job is redundant until they are required again surely? 
 

I’ve been made redundant before but there’s still some guy who’s got the job I used to have now. 

You may well be right, these aren't normal circumstances.  We may have legal issues when we wanted to ramp up the numbers again.

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, annushorribilis III said:

Instead of the massive screen grab - which part is relevant cheers. As said by another poster, if a company makes a POSITION redundant it cannot rehire for the same position. Or rather it can, but with legal consequences.

It mentions how you have to explain clearly to employees that they are on notice and then why they’ve been made redundant. I think we’ve already done this. It’s quite an interesting read, well to me anyway 🤔🙈😜. I can’t post links just now sorry.

[EIEIO]

1 minute ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

No need to pay anyone's contract off if we are able to suspend contracts until income is coming in again.

Quite all this redundancy stuff doesn't apply.

[Pasquale for King]

7 minutes ago, Squirt said:

If the league is suspended and no games are getting played a footballers job is redundant until they are required again surely? 
 

I’ve been made redundant before but there’s still some guy who’s got the job I used to have now. 

Good points 👍🏽

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, EIEIO said:

Quite all this redundancy stuff doesn't apply.

I think it’s just trying to say it’s an option, I’m not for sacking people but if the club wanted to then it would be hard to criticise them for doing so. Article 12 will surely save us from doing it, but the devil in the detail is do you have to do it with everyone or can those like Naismith be paid their 50%.

[annushorribilis III]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

It mentions how you have to explain clearly to employees that they are on notice and then why they’ve been made redundant. I think we’ve already done this. It’s quite an interesting read, well to me anyway 🤔🙈😜. I can’t post links just now sorry.

OK, point taken. 

 

So why not just furlough the players and pay them when the income rolls in again.  No one is gonna starve on on 80% of their salary. Or suspend their contracts (not an option for me).  No need for redundancies. 

[EIEIO]

1 minute ago, Pasquale for King said:

I think it’s just trying to say it’s an option, I’m not for sacking people but if the club wanted to then it would be hard to criticise them for doing so. Article 12 will surely save us from doing it, but the devil in the detail is do you have to do it with everyone or can those like Naismith be paid their 50%.

I think you would do it with any player who didn't take a 50 percent cut. Rumoured to be 7 players I've no idea which ones though.

[davemclaren]

11 minutes ago, Squirt said:

Take them to court for restriction of trade maybe be an option in that case? 
 

Mentioned already

Possibly but you would have to be a brave club to do that, unless it is to CAS. See articles 57 to 59 ( especially 59 re going to normal courts ). 
 

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

OK, point taken. 

 

So why not just furlough the players and pay them when the income rolls in again.  No one is gonna starve on on 80% of their salary. Or suspend their contracts (not an option for me).  No need for redundancies. 

It’s only up to £2500 a month, our average wage is £139k a year or £11-2k a month.

[Jambo-Fox]

Hearts players, rotten on the pitch rotten off the pitch, not following their captains lead, just sheep following the PFA!

 

Clear them out .......  build a team with ...

Dikomona (re-signed) at the back and midfield and Naismith up front and midfield, then fill the other 9 shirts with the ladies team!

 

Probably do better than current squad!

[annushorribilis III]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

It’s only up to £2500 a month, our average wage is £139k a year or £11-2k a month.

OK, no one is gonna starve on £2.5K per month. 

[Squirt]

Just now, annushorribilis III said:

OK, no one is gonna starve on £2.5K per month. 

Maybe not but if you make £100,000 a year you spend money like you make £100,000 a year and your bills reflect it. So to be fair to the players, some of them genuinely could end up in difficulty themselves if they down to money like that.

[Pasquale for King]

1 minute ago, annushorribilis III said:

OK, no one is gonna starve on £2.5K per month. 

Indeed. Their bills might be higher than that though. 

[Pasquale for King]

4 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Possibly but you would have to be a brave club to do that, unless it is to CAS. See articles 57 to 59 ( especially 59 re going to normal courts ). 
 

Not one LAW in there Dave.

[JamboAl]

44 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

But she did mention it, which is what you asked 🤷‍♂️
 

 

Yes but you seem obsessed about having to pay off contracts.  If she's offering contract termination she wouldn't legally have to (although I think she's willing to negotiate).

[Pasquale for King]

5 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

I think you would do it with any player who didn't take a 50 percent cut. Rumoured to be 7 players I've no idea which ones though.

Hopefully, surely they can see 50% is better than nothing. I said yesterday I hope the names are leaked to the Sun 😜.

[Squirt]

5 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Possibly but you would have to be a brave club to do that, unless it is to CAS. See articles 57 to 59 ( especially 59 re going to normal courts ). 
 

No doubting that at all and you’d have to imagine  if it really came down to it FIFA could quite easily just tie us up in court until the cash runs out, same thing that happens in every other industry. Fair or not that’s just how the world works I guess. We’d be in trouble before fifa were anyway.

 

I think we’re all getting a bit carried away regardless and are going in tangents that might not be relevant or worth debating at all.

[davemclaren]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

Not one LAW in there Dave.

Correct, apart from the law of Switzerland but recourse to law isn’t a step I think Hearts will take, given the sporting implications. 

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, Squirt said:

No doubting that at all and you’d have to imagine  if it really came down to it FIFA could quite easily just tie us up in court until the cash runs out, same thing that happens in every other industry. Fair or not that’s just how the world works I guess. We’d be in trouble before fifa were anyway.

 

I think we’re all getting a bit carried away regardless and are going in tangents that might not be relevant or worth debating at all.

I agree. Quite interesting though 😄

[annushorribilis III]

Just now, Pasquale for King said:

Indeed. Their bills might be higher than that though. 

They're no different from anyone else. They can get a mortgage/loan repayment  holiday , if needed. Welcome to the real world lads. 

I've nothing against any player but the club comes first.

 

They can take a cut now and look for the rest when this unprecedented disaster blows over. The clubs holds all the cards  : if the club goes bust the players will get nowt (I'm not saying it will) so some sanity needs to kick in with the prima donnas who are apparently playing hardball. Having a contract is one thing but the club (as with all clubs) having no money through no fault of its own to honour the contract is quite another. 

 

 

[Squirt]

Just now, davemclaren said:

I agree. Quite interesting though 😄

 
Absolutely. Nothing else to do the now I guess so let’s keep going 😂

[annushorribilis III]

3 minutes ago, Squirt said:

No doubting that at all and you’d have to imagine  if it really came down to it FIFA could quite easily just tie us up in court until the cash runs out, same thing that happens in every other industry. Fair or not that’s just how the world works I guess. We’d be in trouble before fifa were anyway.

 

I think we’re all getting a bit carried away regardless and are going in tangents that might not be relevant or worth debating at all.

Indeed. 

[Jambo-Fox]

The players have been given a fair and reasonable offer, some would say generous!

 

For those that don’t accept it, implement the ‘article 12’, ie pay suspended

What’s the worst that can happen? The PFA fights it in court and wins and the players get their wages backdated. That would be at some distant future date. For Hearts this would effectively be a deferral of wages but 100% of wages so it’s a winner as well!
 

But are the players prepared to gamble?  Big gamble for money with the associated stigma of not supporting the club and country!!

 

Go on Hearts do it!
 

 

[Pasquale for King]

2 minutes ago, annushorribilis III said:

They're no different from anyone else. They can get a mortgage/loan repayment  holiday , if needed. Welcome to the real world lads. 

I've nothing against any player but the club comes first.

 

They can take a cut now and look for the rest when this unprecedented disaster blows over. The clubs holds all the cards  : if the club goes bust the players will get nowt (I'm not saying it will) so some sanity needs to kick in with the prima donnas who are apparently playing hardball. Having a contract is one thing but the club (as with all clubs) having no money through no fault of its own to honour the contract is quite another. 

 

 

Absolutely.

[annushorribilis III]

12 minutes ago, davemclaren said:

Possibly but you would have to be a brave club to do that, unless it is to CAS. See articles 57 to 59 ( especially 59 re going to normal courts ). 
 

The rangers did it and no action was taken. 

[Hungry hippo]

12 minutes ago, EIEIO said:

I think you would do it with any player who didn't take a 50 percent cut. Rumoured to be 7 players I've no idea which ones though.

 

How confident are you on the info that it's 7 players?

 

This seems like a more likely amount of players than what most posters were implying yesterday (ie almost all the players).

[Pasquale for King]

5 minutes ago, Squirt said:

No doubting that at all and you’d have to imagine  if it really came down to it FIFA could quite easily just tie us up in court until the cash runs out, same thing that happens in every other industry. Fair or not that’s just how the world works I guess. We’d be in trouble before fifa were anyway.

 

I think we’re all getting a bit carried away regardless and are going in tangents that might not be relevant or worth debating at all.

 

3 minutes ago, Squirt said:

 
Absolutely. Nothing else to do the now I guess so let’s keep going 😂

Nail head etc mate 😃👍🏽

[davemclaren]

1 minute ago, annushorribilis III said:

The rangers did it and no action was taken. 

Did what?

[annushorribilis III]

Just now, davemclaren said:

Did what?

Took the SFA to court.

[davemclaren]

4 minutes ago, Squirt said:

 
Absolutely. Nothing else to do the now I guess so let’s keep going 😂

🤣

[Gilberts Fridge]

When I was going through a redundancy in England five or six years ago, I consulted an employment lawyer as it was clear they were not following their own procedures and it was being used to remove those the new boss did not personally like.

 

The barrister engaged by the employment lawyer made it clear to us that employment law is weighted heavily in the favour of the employer and they could make you redundant on Friday and if their business had changed on Monday by gaining new work or contracts, employ someone new even if part of their role was doing the work you had previously.

 

Any employer, regardless of what you earn will be able to make you redundant on minimum terms,  the main thing that will get you more money is your length of notice or by wining and unfair dismissal case. My job was three months, some were on six and some were on 12. They could make you work your notice, I was lucky and they shoved me straight out the door. The barrister also advised strongly never to go to court as the outcome of the case depended on what side of the bed the judge gout out of that morning and that they were just as likely to set a precedent in case law as to follow previous. Not something I ever wish to go through again.

 

Ann could say that as income has dried up then we need to make people redundant and then when football starts again say that business has changed and we need to employ more people. Not sure how the SFA etc would view it and it may fall foul of their regulations.