|
|
Post by russc on Feb 2, 2019 10:18:01 GMT
The pitch was frozen yesterday, when Hartlepool were due to travel. A pitch inspection today, which may or may not prove playable, would have been too late. Try not to speculate and say things that are basically nonsense. Our club secretary has already explained fully the reason on our forum. It had NOTHING to do with any money difficulty reports. The difficulty moving money excuse doesn't really wash. Even if true, how would it explain money deducted as pension contributions not making it onto the pension over a period of 6 months or more? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 10:39:40 GMT
It is also deep incompetence to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedant on Feb 2, 2019 10:40:50 GMT
Who knew we had so many pensions experts among our fan base... We have a big cohort of pensioners or near pensioners in our fan base. and, if you look at any non-league crowd, so does every club. It keeps us off the streets and is part of the care in the community scheme.  |
|
|
|
Post by moley on Feb 2, 2019 11:00:55 GMT
Who knew we had so many pensions experts among our fan base... I run my own business Steve, so I do know what I'm talking about. Over the last few years, the government have rolled out the compulsory requirement to offer workplace pensions - they started with bigger companies, and eventually got around to the tiddlers like me (I only have three employees). Even though all of my employees already had their own private pension schemes that I pay contributions towards, I had a legal obligation to start the government-backed scheme and then offer enrolment to them. They could either choose to accept the government approved pension scheme, which would then receive contributions from myself as their employer, or opt out and stick with the pensions they already had. It was their choice and I was, in a legal sense, not allowed to give them any advice on what they should do. For me as an employer it seemed like a right royal waste of time and energy setting it up and administering it because nobody chose to switch from their existing pensions but the law is the law, and so I (with the help of my bookkeeper) had to set it up. It is clear from the players statements that at least some of them have enrolled in the scheme offered by Fleet. Having done so, and having seen a chunk of their wages removed each month as a contribution to that scheme, don't you think they have a reasonable legal right to expect that money to be paid into it? As Dave said it is effectively theft by the club but it is a double crime in the sense that they are breaking the new pension laws by not running the compulsory scheme in a proper manner, and not making the employer or employee contributions they are legally obliged to make, into the scheme. There is absolutely no way they can get away with that indefinitely - sooner or later, action will be taken against them. If you could see all of the blurb I received about what might happen if we did not set up the scheme and run it properly, you would understand. If an existing employer scheme met the government criteria and was available to all eligible employees then none of this would have been necessary (e.g. many large employers had no need to do this because the already run schemes which are good enough). As an employer, football clubs are not exempt, in fact jayser is spot on ins aying no employer is It was done because many people were making no provision for their retirement and the Government wanted to put this to the forefront of financial planning. There was no need when most employers of any size ran good schemes and there was decent state provision, but now things are more difficult the onus is being placed on individuals to "provide for themselves". This was a Labour government initiative which was followed through by the Tory Coalition The Ombudsman has ruled on a number of cases where employers have not paid over contributions, always in the employees favour, usually with an additional award for distress and inconvenience, minimum £500 per employee |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:09:58 GMT
I run my own business Steve, so I do know what I'm talking about. Over the last few years, the government have rolled out the compulsory requirement to offer workplace pensions - they started with bigger companies, and eventually got around to the tiddlers like me (I only have three employees). Even though all of my employees already had their own private pension schemes that I pay contributions towards, I had a legal obligation to start the government-backed scheme and then offer enrolment to them. They could either choose to accept the government approved pension scheme, which would then receive contributions from myself as their employer, or opt out and stick with the pensions they already had. It was their choice and I was, in a legal sense, not allowed to give them any advice on what they should do. For me as an employer it seemed like a right royal waste of time and energy setting it up and administering it because nobody chose to switch from their existing pensions but the law is the law, and so I (with the help of my bookkeeper) had to set it up. It is clear from the players statements that at least some of them have enrolled in the scheme offered by Fleet. Having done so, and having seen a chunk of their wages removed each month as a contribution to that scheme, don't you think they have a reasonable legal right to expect that money to be paid into it? As Dave said it is effectively theft by the club but it is a double crime in the sense that they are breaking the new pension laws by not running the compulsory scheme in a proper manner, and not making the employer or employee contributions they are legally obliged to make, into the scheme. There is absolutely no way they can get away with that indefinitely - sooner or later, action will be taken against them. If you could see all of the blurb I received about what might happen if we did not set up the scheme and run it properly, you would understand. If an existing employer scheme met the government criteria and was available to all eligible employees then none of this would have been necessary (e.g. many large employers had no need to do this because the already run schemes which are good enough). As an employer, football clubs are not exempt, in fact jayser is spot on ins aying no employer is It was done because many people were making no provision for their retirement and the Government wanted to put this to the forefront of financial planning. There was no need when most employers of any size ran good schemes and there was decent state provision, but now things are more difficult the onus is being placed on individuals to "provide for themselves". This was a Labour government initiative which was followed through by the Tory Coalition The Ombudsman has ruled on a number of cases where employers have not paid over contributions, always in the employees favour, usually with an additional award for distress and inconvenience, minimum £500 per employee It would be interesting to know how much they actually owe those employee pensions in total, and also, how many players and other employees who have left the club since they set it up, may have not received contributions they were owed - it would also be interesting to know whether those people actually realise their pension funds are short of what is supposed to be in there, if indeed that is the case. Imagine being an ex-player, reading that statement and then checking to find your own fund is short. Potentially, this is a huge mess. If I were a director at Fleet I'd be finding that money by hook or by crook and getting it paid up sharpish. I am not sure when Fleet's roll-out deadline would have been for offering a workplace pension - mine was 2018 but theirs might have been a year earlier as they are a larger business (but still small - very large companies had to do it about five or six years ago). If it was 2017 and they've never paid the contributions, the amounts owing could be quite substantial. Add Moley's £500 fine for each employee on and you have a sum they might struggle to pay. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:25:44 GMT
If an existing employer scheme met the government criteria and was available to all eligible employees then none of this would have been necessary (e.g. many large employers had no need to do this because the already run schemes which are good enough). As an employer, football clubs are not exempt, in fact jayser is spot on ins aying no employer is It was done because many people were making no provision for their retirement and the Government wanted to put this to the forefront of financial planning. There was no need when most employers of any size ran good schemes and there was decent state provision, but now things are more difficult the onus is being placed on individuals to "provide for themselves". This was a Labour government initiative which was followed through by the Tory Coalition The Ombudsman has ruled on a number of cases where employers have not paid over contributions, always in the employees favour, usually with an additional award for distress and inconvenience, minimum £500 per employee It would be interesting to know how much they actually owe those employee pensions in total, and also, how many players and other employees who have left the club since they set it up, have not received contributions they were owed - it would also be interesting to know whether those people actually realise their pension funds are short of what is supposed to be in there, if indeed that is the case. Imagine being an ex-player, reading that statement and then checking to find your own fund is short. Potentially, this is a huge mess. If I were a director at Fleet I'd be finding that money by hook or by crook and getting it paid up sharpish. All of this is very,very interesting but,well actually it's not very interesting at all to be honest it's the sort of Gin&Tonic crap you hear between 13.00 and 14.00 when all the suit clad bullshit Wankers come out to play from their offices and look down their nose at you as if you were filth before going on to talk about the upcoming drop in temperatures that might affect the coffee beans in some backwater shithole in f**king Columbia. Nobody cares , get a life or a life insurance but stop talking about boring bloody or pensions. By the way who gives a tuppeney toss whether the fat pikey Bastard Kedwell has got his £15,000 this month it's his and G&N's problem not OURS!!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:31:22 GMT
I run my own business Steve, so I do know what I'm talking about. Over the last few years, the government have rolled out the compulsory requirement to offer workplace pensions - they started with bigger companies, and eventually got around to the tiddlers like me (I only have three employees). Even though all of my employees already had their own private pension schemes that I pay contributions towards, I had a legal obligation to start the government-backed scheme and then offer enrolment to them. They could either choose to accept the government approved pension scheme, which would then receive contributions from myself as their employer, or opt out and stick with the pensions they already had. It was their choice and I was, in a legal sense, not allowed to give them any advice on what they should do. For me as an employer it seemed like a right royal waste of time and energy setting it up and administering it because nobody chose to switch from their existing pensions but the law is the law, and so I (with the help of my bookkeeper) had to set it up. It is clear from the players statements that at least some of them have enrolled in the scheme offered by Fleet. Having done so, and having seen a chunk of their wages removed each month as a contribution to that scheme, don't you think they have a reasonable legal right to expect that money to be paid into it? As Dave said it is effectively theft by the club but it is a double crime in the sense that they are breaking the new pension laws by not running the compulsory scheme in a proper manner, and not making the employer or employee contributions they are legally obliged to make, into the scheme. There is absolutely no way they can get away with that indefinitely - sooner or later, action will be taken against them. If you could see all of the blurb I received about what might happen if we did not set up the scheme and run it properly, you would understand. If an existing employer scheme met the government criteria and was available to all eligible employees then none of this would have been necessary (e.g. many large employers had no need to do this because the already run schemes which are good enough). As an employer, football clubs are not exempt, in fact jayser is spot on ins aying no employer is It was done because many people were making no provision for their retirement and the Government wanted to put this to the forefront of financial planning. There was no need when most employers of any size ran good schemes and there was decent state provision, but now things are more difficult the onus is being placed on individuals to "provide for themselves". This was a Labour government initiative which was followed through by the Tory Coalition The Ombudsman has ruled on a number of cases where employers have not paid over contributions, always in the employees favour, usually with an additional award for distress and inconvenience, minimum £500 per employee Indeed. In this current year employers must contribute 2% of employee salary and employees 3%. Next year that goes to 3% and 5% respectively |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:36:02 GMT
It would be interesting to know how much they actually owe those employee pensions in total, and also, how many players and other employees who have left the club since they set it up, have not received contributions they were owed - it would also be interesting to know whether those people actually realise their pension funds are short of what is supposed to be in there, if indeed that is the case. Imagine being an ex-player, reading that statement and then checking to find your own fund is short. Potentially, this is a huge mess. If I were a director at Fleet I'd be finding that money by hook or by crook and getting it paid up sharpish. All of this is very,very interesting but,well actually it's not very interesting at all to be honest it's the sort of Gin&Tonic crap you hear between 13.00 and 14.00 when all the suit clad bullshit Wankers come out to play from their offices and look down their nose at you as if you were filth before going on to talk about the upcoming drop in temperatures that might affect the coffee beans in some backwater shithole in f**king Columbia. Nobody cares , get a life or a life insurance but stop talking about boring bloody or pensions. By the way who gives a tuppeney toss whether the fat pikey Bastard Kedwell has got his £15,000 this month it's his and G&N's problem not OURS!!!! Pensions are something we should all be interested in, particularly where they are invested. I keep looking for a fund that invests soley in what I consider to be ethical. Despite my best efforts I am still a little unsure as to whether I am invested in producing land mines, bombs etc |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:38:24 GMT
If an existing employer scheme met the government criteria and was available to all eligible employees then none of this would have been necessary (e.g. many large employers had no need to do this because the already run schemes which are good enough). As an employer, football clubs are not exempt, in fact jayser is spot on ins aying no employer is It was done because many people were making no provision for their retirement and the Government wanted to put this to the forefront of financial planning. There was no need when most employers of any size ran good schemes and there was decent state provision, but now things are more difficult the onus is being placed on individuals to "provide for themselves". This was a Labour government initiative which was followed through by the Tory Coalition The Ombudsman has ruled on a number of cases where employers have not paid over contributions, always in the employees favour, usually with an additional award for distress and inconvenience, minimum £500 per employee Indeed. In this current year employers must contribute 2% of employee salary and employees 3%. Next year that goes to 3% and 5% respectively 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🤒🤒🤕🤒🤒🤒🤒😠😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:40:56 GMT
Indeed. In this current year employers must contribute 2% of employee salary and employees 3%. Next year that goes to 3% and 5% respectively 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🤒🤒🤕🤒🤒🤒🤒😠😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯! Don't worry Mr Sword I have literally tons of chat about economics and various connected issues to bore the pants off you😂😂😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 11:41:41 GMT
All of this is very,very interesting but,well actually it's not very interesting at all to be honest it's the sort of Gin&Tonic crap you hear between 13.00 and 14.00 when all the suit clad bullshit Wankers come out to play from their offices and look down their nose at you as if you were filth before going on to talk about the upcoming drop in temperatures that might affect the coffee beans in some backwater shithole in f**king Columbia. Nobody cares , get a life or a life insurance but stop talking about boring bloody or pensions. By the way who gives a tuppeney toss whether the fat pikey Bastard Kedwell has got his £15,000 this month it's his and G&N's problem not OURS!!!! Pensions are something we should all be interested in, particularly where they are invested. I keep looking for a fund that invests soley in what I consider to be ethical. Despite my best efforts I am still a little unsure as to whether I am invested in producing land mines, bombs etc My dad retired at 60 and died the following day , a lot of bloody good his pension done him . Live for today and not the morrow as the morrow may never arrive. |
|
|
|
Post by jakeyboi on Feb 2, 2019 13:18:31 GMT
😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🤒🤒🤕🤒🤒🤒🤒😠😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡😡🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯🤯! Don't worry Mr Sword I have literally tons of chat about economics and various connected issues to bore the pants off you😂😂😂 What a sad day for mankind.. NWS is plotting a way to get swords pants off... What on earth is wrong in todays society???. |
|
|
|
Post by soulstone on Feb 2, 2019 13:56:14 GMT
Just heard by someone in the know at Fleet that they are going part time next season and there will be no ground redevelopment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Better things to do in life on Feb 2, 2019 14:37:46 GMT
Just heard by someone in the know at Fleet that they are going part time next season and there will be no ground redevelopment. Surely for these financial misdemeanours they should be relegated to NLS as well? Well have some spicy derby games between two part time teams to go to then - if we go down. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2019 14:44:44 GMT
Just heard by someone in the know at Fleet that they are going part time next season and there will be no ground redevelopment. Surely for these financial misdemeanours they should be relegated to NLS as well? Well have some spicy derby games between two part time teams to go to then - if we go down. As far as I'm aware, although it's possible some of their recent dealings may have been illegal, they haven't broken any footballing laws. The only sanctions available to the FA are for actually going into administration, or entering a CVA that doesn't repay 100% of the debt, neither of which looks likely at the moment. |
|
