Third Lanark Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 Regarding the lawless situation it may not necessarily be a sign he was off but just that he won't be playing for perhaps the first month of the season if he is going to get a several match ban? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 If I wis higgy, I would sign anything after the season he has had. As has been said by erchie, the grass isn't always greener. We have stuck by him too, should we not get any loyalty? Good to see his reaction at the end an hopefully he will sign a contract to keep him for the next 2 year. We all know how good he can be on his day. A bit like Erskine in that respect, when he's good he's good but when he's bad we get beat Loyalty these days means staying till the end of your agreed contract and then see what is available to you. Nobody in their right mind will knock back better wages from another club. Afraid the days of Andy Anderson, Jackie Campbell, Donnie McKinnon etc are long gone. The players, quite rightly, hold all the aces now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partick monkey Posted May 17, 2015 Report Share Posted May 17, 2015 I reckon Archie shopped Lawless Re. the gambling thing. He knew he would get a large ban and therfore put off any other clubs coming in for him... Well played Archie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinistar Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Frans interview - http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/sport/partick-thistle/frederic-frans-firhill-foundations-are-in-place-for-premiership-207117n.126277854 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Slight hijack here, but I hope the club will offer improved deals to those employees that are currently receiving less than the living wage. From today's Herald: "Over half of football clubs in the Scottish Premiership employ staff who are paid below the "living wage", an investigation has found. Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee United, Hamilton, Motherwell, Partick Thistle and St Johnstone were found to be paying less than £7.85 an hour, the informal benchmark regarded by many as the minimum required to cover the basic cost of living." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindau Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Slight hijack here, but I hope the club will offer improved deals to those employees that are currently receiving less than the living wage. From today's Herald: "Over half of football clubs in the Scottish Premiership employ staff who are paid below the "living wage", an investigation has found. Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee United, Hamilton, Motherwell, Partick Thistle and St Johnstone were found to be paying less than £7.85 an hour, the informal benchmark regarded by many as the minimum required to cover the basic cost of living." Simply unacceptable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Slight hijack here, but I hope the club will offer improved deals to those employees that are currently receiving less than the living wage. From today's Herald: "Over half of football clubs in the Scottish Premiership employ staff who are paid below the "living wage", an investigation has found. Aberdeen, Celtic, Dundee United, Hamilton, Motherwell, Partick Thistle and St Johnstone were found to be paying less than £7.85 an hour, the informal benchmark regarded by many as the minimum required to cover the basic cost of living." Who do we pay that too? I see Celtic there and that will probably apply to all their non-playing, non-coaching staff. They will have more than any other club of that kind of staff. They also more than any other top league club could afford to pay a good wage. For the likes of us we probably employ a mixture of part-time, underpaid and volunteer admin and similar staff. I'm not using that as an excuse - the number of people we're paying is probably so small we could afford to up their wages a wee bit. What may be a problem is if we're paying youngsters (i.e. development squad) that level. I think paying a wee bit more is essential because apart from the principle of the thing once word gets around you pay so low you may lose out on players. BTW I brought up "apart from the principle" point to show that the principled thing can also be pragmatic. Edited May 18, 2015 by Mr Bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 We should be paying the living wage because it's the right thing to do and shows that we're a progressive club. Couldn't care less about how pragmatic it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 My point is that the excuse for not doing the right thing is that it's not pragmatic to do so. But often the right thing is also pragmatic. Often depends whether you're looking long term or short term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oneteaminglasgow Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 My point is that the excuse for not doing the right thing is that it's not pragmatic to do so. But often the right thing is also pragmatic. Often depends whether you're looking long term or short term. Don't take that as me having a go at you for illustrating that it is also pragmatic! I agree it's an argument that needs addressed sometimes, I'm just saying that for me it shouldn't come into the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meister Jag Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 It would be interesting to know how many young pro's are also on the Modern Apprenticeship scheme and if their wages have been factored in. Does £2.73 an hour ring a bell? I think quite a few Scottish teams (probably most) have kids on schemes - makes sense as they get some form of central government funding. As I see it, I could be wrong (if so shoot me down!), It's then up to the club if they want to top up the minimum wage pay rates. Could this explain why some clubs aren't listed? But I'm with the others, pay a living wage. Careers are short enough and the kudos of playing professional football doesn't pay your bills etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Certainly on face value this doesn't look good. I'm assuming by "staff" the article is referring to non football playing staff. That just shouldn't happen. If it's referring to our younger footballers then level of pay is largely unquantifiable. You could pay a tenner an hour but charge for food, kit, transport etc if you get my drift. I know Accies, St Johnstone and to a lesser extent 'Well have well respected youth development as indeed we're aspiring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Scimmia Rossa Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Perspective required. The BBC have said they approached the clubs for an answer and the clubs directed them to the SPFL. The BBC then go on to say they called up "undercover" to say they were interested in working in any "hospitality opportunities" that the clubs may have. The management of events, hospitality etc is done in house at Partick Thistle. However the fufilment of these is outsourced, dependng on what the end customer wants. PTFC hospitality uses the West of Scotland catering students for example. Some of these contracts have been in place since we were in the first division. Partick Thistle are a decent club. By and large they try to do the right thing by people. To hold them up as some kind of social predator because they meet their legal obligations is a load of nonsense. Especially when they have limited control over what end suppliers do. Edited May 18, 2015 by La Scimmia Rossa 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 I totally accept the defences that are being made of the club here but I do think we should aspire to pay everyone the living wage going forward. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Scimmia Rossa Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 I agree. However, a lot of these people aren't on our payroll. I doubt we have the clout to force suppliers hand much. I raised it with someone today. Hopefully it'll be on the agenda at this morning's routine board meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian_mac Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Totally agree Colin and I think when someone writes an article like this it's extremely bad journalism if they don't point this out regarding external suppliers. I'm just glad that Sporting Solutions aren't involved with us anymore. Had any journalist bothered to investigate any of their business practices it would probably have been one of the biggest PR disasters the club had ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Who do we pay that too? I see Celtic there and that will probably apply to all their non-playing, non-coaching staff. They will have more than any other club of that kind of staff. They also more than any other top league club could afford to pay a good wage. For the likes of us we probably employ a mixture of part-time, underpaid and volunteer admin and similar staff. I'm not using that as an excuse - the number of people we're paying is probably so small we could afford to up their wages a wee bit. What may be a problem is if we're paying youngsters (i.e. development squad) that level. I think paying a wee bit more is essential because apart from the principle of the thing once word gets around you pay so low you may lose out on players. BTW I brought up "apart from the principle" point to show that the principled thing can also be pragmatic. I am pretty sure there was an article about Celtic and the living wage on the same day they offered Scott Brown his recent contract. Every Company can afford it - it would just mean the highest earners in the Company, maybe even shareholders taking a wee bit less Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La Scimmia Rossa Posted May 18, 2015 Report Share Posted May 18, 2015 Shareholders taking a wee bit less? Thistle shareholders lose money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I agree. However, a lot of these people aren't on our payroll. I doubt we have the clout to force suppliers hand much. I raised it with someone today. Hopefully it'll be on the agenda at this morning's routine board meeting. Good point. If it is indeed true, then you also have to ask why the media feed people deliberately misleading disinformation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) Shareholders taking a wee bit less? Thistle shareholders lose money. It wasn't about Thistle, but business in general Edited May 19, 2015 by Lenziejag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 (edited) Lawless signs for another season: http://ptfc.co.uk/ne...signs_extension There is a good interview with him in the Evening Times as well: http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/partick-thistle/steven-lawless-i-deserve-betting-ban-and-im-grateful-for-jags-backing-208433n.127409799 Edited May 29, 2015 by Fawlty Towers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Lawless signs for another season: http://ptfc.co.uk/ne...signs_extension There is a good interview with him in the Evening Times as well: http://www.eveningti...8433n.127409799 That's good news. He came into really good form in the latter half of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 I wish it was for longer than 12 months, but still good news. Stevie has improved every year and is an important player to re-sign. I hope that the new contract has a clause to get rid of the beard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bunny Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 (edited) That must be all the guys we thought would re-sign (apart maybe from Craigen) signed up. Now the difficult part begins: persuading Taylor and Higgy to stay or getting replacements for them and also replacements for Fox and O'Donnell. Funnily enough I've a feeling Taylor might be the most likely to stay. We'll see. Edited May 29, 2015 by Mr Bunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted May 29, 2015 Report Share Posted May 29, 2015 Naturally pleased about this tho' it was one I was expecting. Stevie comes over well in the side article Saying the right things, which hasn't always been the case when using social media. I'm not surprised it's only a year extension given the suspended sentence but I'd like to think he'll be with us a good time longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.