It looks like

[jdfc]

Can't understand why they went in the huff, you give us money, we give it him.😁

The people with the money wanted to have more of a say in the club, a bit like DFCSS, and we all know how that went

[islaydarkblue]

That’s not correct Islay. Their insurance cover was until 30th April and their insurer is paying out until then.
The problem for Aberdeen is the insurer did not wish to include pandemic cover in the new policy, to be fair the high level of known risk would practically be business suicide for the insurer. This sort of policy change after an incident is pretty common, try getting health insurance after cancer.

If so why is the topic on the Aberdeen Football Club website urging their insurer to do the right thing.

[islaydarkblue]

Can't understand why they went in the huff, you give us money, we give it him.😁

I remember reading that DUSC (Arab Trust) wanted to hand over the money in the form a secured loan which was not acceptable to the owners.

[islaydarkblue]

Wonder how a signing on again fee would be treated under this furlough system?

If he is due the rumoured 150k would that all cone from the dabs gullible owner or I wonder if they would be able to claim some of that....Ie 30k.

My understanding of the furlough scheme is that it is 80% of an employee’s monthly salary up to £2,500 per month which equates to £30,000 per annum.
Signing on fees would not be part of an employee’s monthly pay.

[noahrab]

My understanding of the furlough scheme is that it is 80% of an employee’s monthly salary up to £2,500 per month which equates to £30,000 per annum.
Signing on fees would not be part of an employee’s monthly pay.

But it would be part of a contract which they’d be in breach of if they don’t pay up.

[Returnofrros]

My understanding of the furlough scheme is that it is 80% of an employee’s monthly salary up to £2,500 per month which equates to £30,000 per annum.
Signing on fees would not be part of an employee’s monthly pay.

I thought it maybe treated like commission or a bonus or something so would be included but wasn't sure.

[Deeranged]

My understanding of the furlough scheme is that it is 80% of an employee’s monthly salary up to £2,500 per month which equates to £30,000 per annum.
Signing on fees would not be part of an employee’s monthly pay.

Do you think all the players will actually be salaried by the club or will all or some of them maybe be contracted and invoices paid via their agents?

[noahrab]

Do you think all the players will actually be salaried by the club or will all or some of them maybe be contracted and invoices paid via their agents?

Player contracts are registered with the SFA.

Don’t think 3rd party ownership is allowed.

Even a nationalist knows that surely.

[islaydarkblue]

Do you think all the players will actually be salaried by the club or will all or some of them maybe be contracted and invoices paid via their agents?

Deeranged.
It could be that a number of players have their wages paid into their own limited company.
This allows them to legally minimise their tax as they they are able to withdraw their wages in the form of dividends.
However people who have set up a limited company to minimise tax do not qualify for the furlough scheme and have to sign on.

[islaydarkblue]

I thought it maybe treated like commission or a bonus or something so would be included but wasn't sure.

It is likely that Shankland will be receiving an annual salary far in excess of £30k maximum annual payout for the furlough scheme without including his rumoured bonus.
It is then up to the owners of United to decide whether they will pay their players wages and bonuses (if applicable) up to 100%.