Fraser wishart/the press and some ex player pundits

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, Cruyff said:

In a national football association handbook. Not in employment or contract law which supercedes that. 

 

When do the courts overturn Sporting rules or sanctions? 

[hueyview]

On 28/03/2020 at 15:07, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

It might take a year, folk sadly pass away but we will need football and other sport when we come out if this...  And journalists we totally at time disagree with will be back..

Good luck mate.....

[Cruyff]

2 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

When do the courts overturn Sporting rules or sanctions? 

There has been plenty of times where CAS has been involved in disputes and there has been quite a few where players have sued clubs or opponents for injuries in English Court of Law under Tort, which would be Delict in Scotland. 

 

The most famous case where footballing laws have infringed on an individuals rights was The Belgian FA v Jean-Marc Bosman which went to the European Court of Justice and ruled in his favour. 

 

I'd imagine that Ann hasn't just taken what it says in the SFA handbook as gospel either given her recent statement and will be ensuring that any decision Hearts make regarding the termination of contract is on a sound legal footing. 

 

Of course, it entirely depends what it says in the small print of contract itself and whether they conform to Scots/UK contract and employment legislation. 

 

I don't think there has been a precedent set on this article before so it is there to be tested. 

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

We can't immediately cancel any contracts. Firstly, we would have be legally certain that we could without potentially finding ourselves in a dispute and secondly, we'd have to give a period of notice. 

 

So I can't see any player who's contract expires at the end of May to take a pay cut, they'll sit tight no doubt. 

 

That said, some of them may want to stay at Hearts and they may say, if you extend my contract for next season, I will take a pay cut because it is either that or potentially nothing over the summer as I doubt clubs will be signing free agents anytime soon. 

 

 

We can reduce their salaries to zero under article 12 immediately so why wouldn’t they agree to 50% pay cut. Even Lockie worked out that was the best deal for them. 

[Cruyff]

13 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

We can reduce their salaries to zero under article 12 immediately so why wouldn’t they agree to 50% pay cut. Even Lockie worked out that was the best deal for them. 

I wouldn't take what it says in an SFA handbook as gospel. As far as I am aware, article 12 has never been used or used in this type of situation, so there is no precedent for it. 

 

Contract and Employment legislation and the rights of employees under those acts apply to everyone, including football clubs. 

 

Unless footballers do not have the same rights as everyone else? 

[Pasquale for King]

43 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

I wouldn't take what it says in an SFA handbook as gospel. As far as I am aware, article 12 has never been used or used in this type of situation, so there is no precedent for it. 

 

Contract and Employment legislation and the rights of employees under those acts apply to everyone, including football clubs. 

 

Unless footballers do not have the same rights as everyone else? 

That’s a great point, the law of the land obviously supersedes the rules of football. Probably the reason no club has simply suspended payments.

[Mikey1874]

 

[Cruyff]

46 minutes ago, Pasquale for King said:

That’s a great point, the law of the land obviously supersedes the rules of football. Probably the reason no club has simply suspended payments.

If it was entirely legal, everyone would have done it by now. 

 

That is probably why she released that statement to clarify the clubs position, that it did not threaten to use article 12 but reserves its right to do so. In other words, our lawyers are looking into it. 

 

If we go ahead and invoke this article 12 and we believe we are on a sound legal footing to do so, we are 100% going to court. The PFA will fight this tooth and nail because what it is essentially suggesting is, given a certain situation arises such as this where finances are tight, or revenue drops, clubs can just tear up contracts willy nilly.

 

It will be argued what is to stop them from using this as a loophole to release players without compensation in the future. What protections and provisions do players have in this scenario. It will open a big **** off can of worms and we could find ourselves at the sharp end of a Court Ruling saying we have to pay up contracts in full. 

[CJGJ]

It will have to go through the Sports court system first before there would be any formal legal action

 

 

[Pasquale for King]

10 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

If it was entirely legal, everyone would have done it by now. 

 

That is probably why she released that statement to clarify the clubs position, that it did not threaten to use article 12 but reserves its right to do so. In other words, our lawyers are looking into it. 

 

If we go ahead and invoke this article 12 and we believe we are on a sound legal footing to do so, we are 100% going to court. The PFA will fight this tooth and nail because what it is essentially suggesting is, given a certain situation arises such as this where finances are tight, or revenue drops, clubs can just tear up contracts willy nilly.

 

It will be argued what is to stop them from using this as a loophole to release players without compensation in the future. What protections and provisions do players have in this scenario. It will open a big **** off can of worms and we could find ourselves at the sharp end of a Court Ruling saying we have to pay up contracts in full. 

Spot on.

[Mikey1874]

I think clubs can do it. Its badly ill-informed to say clubs would have done it by now. The situation has just happened and everyone is still mostly assessing things. Uncertainty around the restart to football a key factor. 

 

The SPFL and SFA have used lawyers for years to ensure their rules  are watertight. 

 

But we'll see. 

[soonbe110]

2 hours ago, Cruyff said:

I wouldn't take what it says in an SFA handbook as gospel. As far as I am aware, article 12 has never been used or used in this type of situation, so there is no precedent for it. 

 

Contract and Employment legislation and the rights of employees under those acts apply to everyone, including football clubs. 

 

Unless footballers do not have the same rights as everyone else? 

Well we haven’t had a Coronavirus enforced suspension of the league before so no surprise there. I think the govt gave every UK business the authority to furlough employees and claim back 80% of their wages up to the cap just last week. Why would football clubs be above that legislation? Employees have to agree to it but it seems that maybe the players have three or four options, take Budges offer, take the govts offer, take the club to court if they suspend wages completely or lastly, just rip up their contracts. In the current climate I don’t think any employee has the freedom to insist on their current contract being honoured given the governments actions to protect employers and employees. PR wise it would be a fatal approach for our players in Scotland to insist on full play when all across Europe players are agreeing to wage cuts and deferrals.  I could be wrong though, time will tell. 

[Kidd’s Boots]

19 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

If it was entirely legal, everyone would have done it by now. 

 

That is probably why she released that statement to clarify the clubs position, that it did not threaten to use article 12 but reserves its right to do so. In other words, our lawyers are looking into it. 

 

If we go ahead and invoke this article 12 and we believe we are on a sound legal footing to do so, we are 100% going to court. The PFA will fight this tooth and nail because what it is essentially suggesting is, given a certain situation arises such as this where finances are tight, or revenue drops, clubs can just tear up contracts willy nilly.

 

It will be argued what is to stop them from using this as a loophole to release players without compensation in the future. What protections and provisions do players have in this scenario. It will open a big **** off can of worms and we could find ourselves at the sharp end of a Court Ruling saying we have to pay up contracts in full. 

I would expect that it (Article 12 clause) is entirely legal if this forms part of any employment contract. The contracts would have to have been ratified by both parties, agent of player and clubs legal teams prior to signing and ensuring that the contract, particularly for the clubs benefit  satisfies SPFL & SFA conditions of membership etc.

 

If I were a member of the PFA Scotland and I found out last week that FW and ARH in their professional capacity as Directors of PFA Scotland having looked at my contract and realised that, in the current circumstances regarding the liquidity position of not only HMFC, but every member club of the SPFL,  and advised anything other than my best option was to take 50% reduction for the time being as the prudent step to ensure my contract remained valid, I would have asked for the return of my membership fees and found alternative representation. 

 

I dont believe the PFA Scotland do their members any service by trying to play hard ball regarding this situation. As this is an employment issue, I would imagine the first port of call would be the Employment Tribunal Service, where the main focus is on the process and procedure of communicating termination of contract, redundancy, or in the current situation, furlough. From what has been reported, I would suggest that AB is doing everything she can to follow procedures, and protect the interests of the business, if indeed the PFAS do advise a member  to take it to a tribunal. 

 

 

[jimbojambo]

Strangely enough for all those so called journalists who wish to be controversial could actually achieve that by writing a pro-Hearts article and in these tough times for newspapers a title that was seen not to be anti-jambo would benefit from the maroon pound. But these individuals are not known to be the sharpest tools in the box and are happy to regurgitate the usual unsubstantiated nonsense. 

[gorgie rd eh11]

3 minutes ago, jimbojambo said:

Strangely enough for all those so called journalists who wish to be controversial could actually achieve that by writing a pro-Hearts article and in these tough times for newspapers a title that was seen not to be anti-jambo would benefit from the maroon pound. But these individuals are not known to be the sharpest tools in the box and are happy to regurgitate the usual unsubstantiated nonsense. 

 

 

 They don't want to be controversial, they want an easy life so stay away from the real s***e that infects Scottish football. They'd rather be matey with Lenny and Stevie G and get free pies at their pet clubs than do a proper job.

[soonbe110]

23 minutes ago, jimbojambo said:

Strangely enough for all those so called journalists who wish to be controversial could actually achieve that by writing a pro-Hearts article and in these tough times for newspapers a title that was seen not to be anti-jambo would benefit from the maroon pound. But these individuals are not known to be the sharpest tools in the box and are happy to regurgitate the usual unsubstantiated nonsense. 

Graham Spiers yesterday so buy the Times tomorrow! 

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

It will be argued what is to stop them from using this as a loophole to release players without compensation in the future. What protections and provisions do players have in this scenario. It will open a big **** off can of worms and we could find ourselves at the sharp end of a Court Ruling saying we have to pay up contracts in full. 

That’s not very likely is it?  I mean how many times do you think the SPFL are likely to formally suspend the league again in the future?  This is the first time since the war isn’t it?  

[Fifer Jambo]

Edited March 29, 2020 by Fifer Jambo

[Cruyff]

33 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

That’s not very likely is it?  I mean how many times do you think the SPFL are likely to formally suspend the league again in the future?  This is the first time since the war isn’t it?  

I never suggested that. If you read it, I said clubs could use article 12 as a loophole to terminate players contracts by arguing they have lost revenue or have tighter finances at any point, not just everytime the league is suspended. 

[Cruyff]

1 hour ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

I would expect that it (Article 12 clause) is entirely legal if this forms part of any employment contract. The contracts would have to have been ratified by both parties, agent of player and clubs legal teams prior to signing and ensuring that the contract, particularly for the clubs benefit  satisfies SPFL & SFA conditions of membership etc.

 

This is true, if it is in the contract and ratified by both parties it could well be,unless the article 12 contravenes employment law to begin with. That's why I'm saying that Ann Budge will have to know that she is on sound legal ground before taking any such action. 

[Cruyff]

1 hour ago, soonbe110 said:

Well we haven’t had a Coronavirus enforced suspension of the league before so no surprise there. I think the govt gave every UK business the authority to furlough employees and claim back 80% of their wages up to the cap just last week. Why would football clubs be above that legislation? Employees have to agree to it but it seems that maybe the players have three or four options, take Budges offer, take the govts offer, take the club to court if they suspend wages completely or lastly, just rip up their contracts. In the current climate I don’t think any employee has the freedom to insist on their current contract being honoured given the governments actions to protect employers and employees. PR wise it would be a fatal approach for our players in Scotland to insist on full play when all across Europe players are agreeing to wage cuts and deferrals.  I could be wrong though, time will tell. 

The players should act in good faith anyway and accept the terms on offer, if anything purely on the basis of being nothing but utter shite all season. 

 

Still, if you have a contract that says you get paid this much for this many years, that is it, neither party can breach that contract unless this article was written into the contract which was agreed by club, agent and player and it does not contravene employment law. So the players are entirely within their rights to say no thanks. 

 

You cannot force someone to accept a pay cut and you cannot threaten them with termination of employment if they do not. That is absolutely against the law. 

[JamboAl]

4 hours ago, Cruyff said:

I wouldn't take what it says in an SFA handbook as gospel. As far as I am aware, article 12 has never been used or used in this type of situation, so there is no precedent for it. 

 

Contract and Employment legislation and the rights of employees under those acts apply to everyone, including football clubs. 

 

Unless footballers do not have the same rights as everyone else? 

There doesn't have to a precedent which is hardly surprising if Article 12 has never been used.

There was no precedent when Andy Webster broke his contract.

[Jambo-Fox]

1 hour ago, Fifer Jambo said:

Thanks Fifer .... easier to read version attached

[Kidd’s Boots]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

I never suggested that. If you read it, I said clubs could use article 12 as a loophole to terminate players contracts by arguing they have lost revenue or have tighter finances at any point, not just everytime the league is suspended. 

There is no loophole the clubs can use as the article can only be invoked when the Scottish FA specifically suspend the game. 

 

In the event of the Scottish FA deciding that the game shall be suspended, either entirely or in any district or districts as provided for in the articles of association of the Scottish FA, this agreement shall be correspondingly suspended, unless the club is exempted from such suspension or the club otherwise determines

 

I would also suggest that by design, this clause would not contravene employment laws either here or within the EU, as I doubt the SFA would get approval for their articles of association to met UEFA and FIFA membership if it didn't comply. Any Scottish team who fielded a player in any European competition held under the jurisdiction of UEFA and FIFA, would have broken EU employment rights by doing so. 

 

Domestically, the SFA and SPFL joint task force suspended the game on March 13. The only options available to all clubs are suspend all contracts as of that date or self exemption as the club determines, in our case keep contracts valid but reduced to 50%. 

[soonbe110]

8 hours ago, Cruyff said:

The players should act in good faith anyway and accept the terms on offer, if anything purely on the basis of being nothing but utter shite all season. 

 

Still, if you have a contract that says you get paid this much for this many years, that is it, neither party can breach that contract unless this article was written into the contract which was agreed by club, agent and player and it does not contravene employment law. So the players are entirely within their rights to say no thanks. 

 

You cannot force someone to accept a pay cut and you cannot threaten them with termination of employment if they do not. That is absolutely against the law. 

Or you can volunteer/agree to a take less pay especially if refusal to do so means the company goes into Admin and you get nothing anyway. What she told them wasn’t a threat, it was fact. If we don’t reduce the wage bill significantly we won’t survive a prolonged period with no income. 
Been there more than once personally and it’s pretty straightforward as to what employees should do. 

[Mikey1874]

9 hours ago, Cruyff said:

The players should act in good faith anyway and accept the terms on offer, if anything purely on the basis of being nothing but utter shite all season. 

 

Still, if you have a contract that says you get paid this much for this many years, that is it, neither party can breach that contract unless this article was written into the contract which was agreed by club, agent and player and it does not contravene employment law. So the players are entirely within their rights to say no thanks. 

 

You cannot force someone to accept a pay cut and you cannot threaten them with termination of employment if they do not. That is absolutely against the law. 

 

You've got that last bit wrong. Maybe have a search online.

 

Employers can use a procedure to change terms and conditions. You give notice, consultation etc. Then if there is no agreement you effectively sack and re-engage everyone on the new terms. I know. I've been through it twice. 

 

This clause is based on that process which is clearly legal. 

Edited March 30, 2020 by Mikey1874

[Mikey1874]

9 hours ago, Jambo-Fox said:

Thanks Fifer .... easier to read version attached

 

She'll be raging she's described as Morningside. 

[HoGwash]

11 hours ago, jimbojambo said:

Strangely enough for all those so called journalists who wish to be controversial could actually achieve that by writing a pro-Hearts article and in these tough times for newspapers a title that was seen not to be anti-jambo would benefit from the maroon pound. But these individuals are not known to be the sharpest tools in the box and are happy to regurgitate the usual unsubstantiated nonsense. 

I think there's an article supportive of Ann Budge's approach in today's Herald although I can only read the first paragraph as the rest is behind the paywall. 

[Harry Potter]

On 28/03/2020 at 10:47, Famous 1874 said:

Stephen Craigan 100% has an agenda. Always negative towards us on TV.

Hes not the brightest, cant even hide the fact, what actually is his problem, refused free entry to Tynecastle

maybe.

[Cruyff]

2 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

You've got that last bit wrong. Maybe have a search online.

 

Employers can use a procedure to change terms and conditions. You give notice, consultation etc. Then if there is no agreement you effectively sack and re-engage everyone on the new terms. I know. I've been through it twice. 

 

This clause is based on that process which is clearly legal. 

Employers can reduce your hours. That is about it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jan/11/pay-cut-employees

They cannot force you to take a pay cut or sack you. If that has happened to you, you've been done like a kipper. 

3 hours ago, soonbe110 said:

Or you can volunteer/agree to a take less pay especially if refusal to do so means the company goes into Admin and you get nothing anyway. What she told them wasn’t a threat, it was fact. If we don’t reduce the wage bill significantly we won’t survive a prolonged period with no income. 
Been there more than once personally and it’s pretty straightforward as to what employees should do. 

The only way hearts can go into Admin is voluntarily. 

[Mikey1874]

18 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Employers can reduce your hours. That is about it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jan/11/pay-cut-employees

They cannot force you to take a pay cut or sack you. If that has happened to you, you've been done like a kipper. 

The only way hearts can go into Admin is voluntarily. 

 

 

What about these guys. Different laws?

 

 

[Cruyff]

10 hours ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

There is no loophole the clubs can use as the article can only be invoked when the Scottish FA specifically suspend the game. 

 

In the event of the Scottish FA deciding that the game shall be suspended, either entirely or in any district or districts as provided for in the articles of association of the Scottish FA, this agreement shall be correspondingly suspended, unless the club is exempted from such suspension or the club otherwise determines

 

I would also suggest that by design, this clause would not contravene employment laws either here or within the EU, as I doubt the SFA would get approval for their articles of association to met UEFA and FIFA membership if it didn't comply. Any Scottish team who fielded a player in any European competition held under the jurisdiction of UEFA and FIFA, would have broken EU employment rights by doing so. 

 

Domestically, the SFA and SPFL joint task force suspended the game on March 13. The only options available to all clubs are suspend all contracts as of that date or self exemption as the club determines, in our case keep contracts valid but reduced to 50%. 

 

That loosely worded article is open to much interpretation. 

 

Is it suspended or, postponed? 

 

The English FA says it is postponed. The SFA are saying suspended. It's similar but not quite the same thing. 

 

Until the SFA make the call to abondon the fixture lists and void the season, I think our hands are tied. If they resume at a later date, technically it was a postponement and players contracts were valid. 

 

As I said, if a suspension is a postponement defined by the SFA, what is to stop clubs using this as a loophole to release players during the Winter Break, which could be said is a suspension of fixtures or, if fixtures are suspended/postponed due to e.g. Severe weather? It doesn't clarify what a suspension is. 

 

The SFA's handbook is taken from directives by Fifa and CAS which are based on Swiss Contract Law. Under FIFA's directives, you can only terminate a contract if there is just cause and it underlines what just cause is. Nowhere does it say that clubs can terminate contracts if there is a postponement or suspension of fixtures. 

 

This is very difficult for Hearts to make this call because there is so much uncertainty as to whether the season will commence at a later date or not. 

[jock _turd]

15 hours ago, Cruyff said:

If it was entirely legal, everyone would have done it by now. 

 

That is probably why she released that statement to clarify the clubs position, that it did not threaten to use article 12 but reserves its right to do so. In other words, our lawyers are looking into it. 

 

If we go ahead and invoke this article 12 and we believe we are on a sound legal footing to do so, we are 100% going to court. The PFA will fight this tooth and nail because what it is essentially suggesting is, given a certain situation arises such as this where finances are tight, or revenue drops, clubs can just tear up contracts willy nilly.

 

It will be argued what is to stop them from using this as a loophole to release players without compensation in the future. What protections and provisions do players have in this scenario. It will open a big **** off can of worms and we could find ourselves at the sharp end of a Court Ruling saying we have to pay up contracts in full. 

You are talking about contract laws... I am far from an expert ... very far but every one of our players signed a contract which bound them to the rules of The Scottish Football association and that is, perhaps an unpalatable, fact. These player could go to court but I think that would be the defense of any club within the Scottish game. The fact that may be that non of these player actually knew about these rules... does that excuse them? I personally doubt that ignorance of what you are signing for is down to the person signing the document not the person asking them to sign it. Lets face it the SFA rule book is not some sort of secret anybody can read it... except it would appear players who suddenly find the did not get the right advice from their agents.

[Cruyff]

13 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

 

What about these guys. Different laws?

 

 

The laws quite clear - "By law, employers cannot unilaterally cut an employee's pay. If, in exceptional circumstances such as the current recession, employees agree, they need to be aware of the implications for any subsequent redundancy payment and their pension rights." 

[Cruyff]

1 minute ago, jock _turd said:

You are talking about contract laws... I am far from an expert ... very far but every one of our players signed a contract which bound them to the rules of The Scottish Football association and that is, perhaps an unpalatable, fact. These player could go to court but I think that would be the defense of any club within the Scottish game. The fact that may be that non of these player actually knew about these rules... does that excuse them? I personally doubt that ignorance of what you are signing for is down to the person signing the document not the person asking them to sign it. Lets face it the SFA rule book is not some sort of secret anybody can read it... except it would appear players who suddenly find the did not get the right advice from their agents.

All true. However, as I've stated above, FIFA's directives on Contracts are quite clear on what justifies termination and they and CAS are the governing body. 

 

The SFA have also yet to clarify the situation. 

 

I think it'll get hauled through CAS and maybe into court of law if it were to happen. 

 

In saying that, I don't think it will happen though, I think the players will negotiate something and some may leave but will be compensated in some way. 

[OTT]

I think the abuse Budge and Hearts have received from pundits has been utterly disgusting. 

 

Every single club is in an impossible situation, and we're being lambasted by folk who have spent the better part of their life heading balls for a living. You'll forgive me for not taking their financial advice. Take hibs and this indefinite deferral, all this does is kick the problem down the road and makes players have to do without for a long period - they will need to pay the deferred wages plus the wages that they'd be paying anyway .. thats a huge amount of money. Hearts are at least recognising that the players have financial commitments and attempting to ensure they have some form of income which will help throughout this time. We'd be within our rights to activate article 12 and purge the first team, but we're not. 

 

The club should be taking notes and making sure these vultures aren't ever back inside Tynecastle.  

[soonbe110]

50 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Employers can reduce your hours. That is about it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jan/11/pay-cut-employees

They cannot force you to take a pay cut or sack you. If that has happened to you, you've been done like a kipper. 

The only way hearts can go into Admin is voluntarily. 

 

Edited March 30, 2020 by soonbe110

[soonbe110]

51 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Employers can reduce your hours. That is about it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/jan/11/pay-cut-employees

They cannot force you to take a pay cut or sack you. If that has happened to you, you've been done like a kipper. 

The only way hearts can go into Admin is voluntarily. 

I agree, that’s what I said. 

[jock _turd]

9 minutes ago, OTT said:

I think the abuse Budge and Hearts have received from pundits has been utterly disgusting. 

 

Every single club is in an impossible situation, and we're being lambasted by folk who have spent the better part of their life heading balls for a living. You'll forgive me for not taking their financial advice. Take hibs and this indefinite deferral, all this does is kick the problem down the road and makes players have to do without for a long period - they will need to pay the deferred wages plus the wages that they'd be paying anyway .. thats a huge amount of money. Hearts are at least recognising that the players have financial commitments and attempting to ensure they have some form of income which will help throughout this time. We'd be within our rights to activate article 12 and purge the first team, but we're not. 

 

The club should be taking notes and making sure these vultures aren't ever back inside Tynecastle.  

 

I is a very blunt tool to deflect the flak they themselves would be about take because, as has been seen already, this is a financial situation that is going to effect all teams not just Hearts... the hard of thinking have just not realised it yet!

Edited March 30, 2020 by jock _turd

[jock _turd]

Just now, soonbe110 said:

 

emm yes they can and many will !

[soonbe110]

20 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

 

That loosely worded article is open to much interpretation. 

 

Is it suspended or, postponed? 

 

The English FA says it is postponed. The SFA are saying suspended. It's similar but not quite the same thing. 

 

Until the SFA make the call to abondon the fixture lists and void the season, I think our hands are tied. If they resume at a later date, technically it was a postponement and players contracts were valid. 

 

As I said, if a suspension is a postponement defined by the SFA, what is to stop clubs using this as a loophole to release players during the Winter Break, which could be said is a suspension of fixtures or, if fixtures are suspended/postponed due to e.g. Severe weather? It doesn't clarify what a suspension is. 

 

The SFA's handbook is taken from directives by Fifa and CAS which are based on Swiss Contract Law. Under FIFA's directives, you can only terminate a contract if there is just cause and it underlines what just cause is. Nowhere does it say that clubs can terminate contracts if there is a postponement or suspension of fixtures. 

 

This is very difficult for Hearts to make this call because there is so much uncertainty as to whether the season will commence at a later date or not. 

No, technically it’s a suspended ie the league was suspended for x weeks/months. The SFA/SPFL used the word suspension, article 12 uses the words suspension, seems pretty cut and dried to me. 
Postponed means put off until a later date, suspended means put on hold pending a decision, cancelled means off completely. The winter break is scheduled as part of the seasons fixture list. Games that are postponed are always rescheduled for later in the season. Not sure why you keeping digging. 
The original debate on this thread is about whether clubs can stop paying players wages under article 12. You said no, others have said yes. Now you are bringing contract termination into it. The only discussion re contract termination is the option to do that given to the players by Budge. 

[Victorian]

It's much,  much simpler than examining rules and contracts.   Players and agents and the PFA would do well to adopt a lateral thinking approach instead of allowing the ideal become the enemy of the good.

 

It's very simple.     In a time of incredible uncertainty,   is it not better to simply settle for the security of 50% of a lot?    Is that not better than going round in circles to argue for more and risking less?

 

Players... who is going to give you your next contract right now?    Where are you planning on playing?

[soonbe110]

2 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

emm yes they can and many will !

What? 

[JamboAl]

31 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

All true. However, as I've stated above, FIFA's directives on Contracts are quite clear on what justifies termination and they and CAS are the governing body. 

 

The SFA have also yet to clarify the situation. 

 

I think it'll get hauled through CAS and maybe into court of law if it were to happen. 

 

In saying that, I don't think it will happen though, I think the players will negotiate something and some may leave but will be compensated in some way. 

They have suspended the league.  Even if Hearts wanted to play on they can't as they would need someone to play against.

The SFA are yet to clarify the situation because they don't know.  Nevertheless they cannot come along at the end of this and say

"I know we said suspended but in hindsight we meant postponed"

I wonder if in law the SFA themselves would be  culpable, in that they issued the edict which the clubs were bound to follow.

[mitch41]

Certain rags go hunting for quotes from ex player’s who have become pundits that will make up dirt and exaggerate the truth on Ann Budge and Hearts. The likes of Ferguson, Stein, Smith, Souness ect all had their troubles with newspapers and it was the papers that suffered. A club should never lie down to these scumbags because they need the clubs more than clubs need them.

[Kidd’s Boots]

1 hour ago, Cruyff said:

 

That loosely worded article is open to much interpretation. 

 

Is it suspended or, postponed? 

 

The English FA says it is postponed. The SFA are saying suspended. It's similar but not quite the same thing. 

 

Until the SFA make the call to abondon the fixture lists and void the season, I think our hands are tied. If they resume at a later date, technically it was a postponement and players contracts were valid. 

 

As I said, if a suspension is a postponement defined by the SFA, what is to stop clubs using this as a loophole to release players during the Winter Break, which could be said is a suspension of fixtures or, if fixtures are suspended/postponed due to e.g. Severe weather? It doesn't clarify what a suspension is. 

 

The SFA's handbook is taken from directives by Fifa and CAS which are based on Swiss Contract Law. Under FIFA's directives, you can only terminate a contract if there is just cause and it underlines what just cause is. Nowhere does it say that clubs can terminate contracts if there is a postponement or suspension of fixtures. 

 

This is very difficult for Hearts to make this call because there is so much uncertainty as to whether the season will commence at a later date or not. 

The game in Scotland has been suspended by the Joint Task Force on March 13, there is no dubiety over this. Any club currently honouring full or partial payment of contracts is doing so as it has "otherwise determined". We can ignore postponement in this case.

 

The FIFA directives list 14 sections and no less than 30 sub sections which define how legally both parties can terminate contracts, under Just Cause, Sporting Just Cause and Just Cause relating to salary non payment etc. Nowhere does it state that a club cannot terminate a contract due to the game being suspended. These Sporting Just Cause states that if a contracted player has played in less than 10% of the games competed in, they can legally terminate their contracts, in our case 3 appearances. How many of the first team squad would this apply to? And how many have invoked their legal right to do this?  Most players know the importance of an employment contract, and as no better offers will be on the horizon for a while, the club and contracted players need to put the survival of the business first.

 

By paying 50% of a contract, the club can ensure that fitness standards are maintained under a contractual obligation. If the players had been placed in furlough, and their salary met the government criteria of 80% to a max of £2.5k, they would be under no obligation to remain fit for the resumption if one ever happens. I firmly believe that AB & the board are doing the right thing here for all concerned .

 

[TexasAndy]

2 hours ago, OTT said:

I think the abuse Budge and Hearts have received from pundits has been utterly disgusting. 

 

Every single club is in an impossible situation, and we're being lambasted by folk who have spent the better part of their life heading balls for a living. You'll forgive me for not taking their financial advice. Take hibs and this indefinite deferral, all this does is kick the problem down the road and makes players have to do without for a long period - they will need to pay the deferred wages plus the wages that they'd be paying anyway .. thats a huge amount of money. Hearts are at least recognising that the players have financial commitments and attempting to ensure they have some form of income which will help throughout this time. We'd be within our rights to activate article 12 and purge the first team, but we're not. 

 

The club should be taking notes and making sure these vultures aren't ever back inside Tynecastle.  

Absolutely Spot On.  It's not only disgusting it's absolutely bonkers although the intelligence levels of many that are commenting leaves a lot to be desired.   This is a major crisis and too many clubs have their heads buried in the sand thinking that everything will be OK.  It's a bit like Trump still thinking the virus will magically blow away!!  History is going to make many many people look very stupid.  

[Guest ToqueJambo]

7 minutes ago, Kidd’s Boots said:

The game in Scotland has been suspended by the Joint Task Force on March 13, there is no dubiety over this. Any club currently honouring full or partial payment of contracts is doing so as it has "otherwise determined". We can ignore postponement in this case.

 

The FIFA directives list 14 sections and no less than 30 sub sections which define how legally both parties can terminate contracts, under Just Cause, Sporting Just Cause and Just Cause relating to salary non payment etc. Nowhere does it state that a club cannot terminate a contract due to the game being suspended. These Sporting Just Cause states that if a contracted player has played in less than 10% of the games competed in, they can legally terminate their contracts, in our case 3 appearances. How many of the first team squad would this apply to? And how many have invoked their legal right to do this?  Most players know the importance of an employment contract, and as no better offers will be on the horizon for a while, the club and contracted players need to put the survival of the business first.

 

By paying 50% of a contract, the club can ensure that fitness standards are maintained under a contractual obligation. If the players had been placed in furlough, and their salary met the government criteria of 80% to a max of £2.5k, they would be under no obligation to remain fit for the resumption if one ever happens. I firmly believe that AB & the board are doing the right thing here for all concerned .

 

 

👍It's a tough balancing act. Lots of tough calls being made everywhere. Budge is custodian of a club fans have paid 10m to keep afloat. It's her job to make that the no. 1 priority while attempting to do as much as she can for the employees in line with the government schemes being rolled out etc.

[Kidd’s Boots]

3 hours ago, ToqueJambo said:

 

👍It's a tough balancing act. Lots of tough calls being made everywhere. Budge is custodian of a club fans have paid 10m to keep afloat. It's her job to make that the no. 1 priority while attempting to do as much as she can for the employees in line with the government schemes being rolled out etc.

Completely agree, and frankly, I for one don't envy the decisions all boards may have to take further down the line.

[Mikey1874]

This is going to run