ENIC...

PeeEyeEmPee · Mar 31, 2020

punky said:
I'm probably the biggest BSOL here but this is absolutely fucking disgusting from Levy.

The club made a world-record profit of £114m in 17/18 season and £68m in 18/19 season. The club is one of the most rececession-proof industries and regardless of how long this virus goes on, will be just fine.

To reduce the lowest paid staff salaries by 20% and then shift the rest of what they will be paid onto the country so effectively everyone in the country will be paying their wages is despicable. On top of this there may be a long delay before they can get their furloughed wages from the government.

Also whilst it's not the players responsibility to sustain the club's staff, they should have a look in the mirror right now too.

Agree with this 100%. I generally tend to come down more on the pro Levy side of debates, but I think this is disgusting. The collective salaries of those 550 non-playing staff is bound to be a fraction of what we're paying the players. Making them the government's responsibility now while the players keep all of theirs is just wrong IMO.

I also don't think that the excuse of "well everyone else is or will be doing it" washes here. It's either it's morally wrong or it isn't. Your morals shouldn't depend on that of anyone else's.

mattyspurs · Mar 31, 2020

Ahhhh so it seems the issue is that Levy has taken a bonus at some point in the last financial year, not that he has furloughed the non playing staff.

Bobbins · Mar 31, 2020

PeeEyeEmPee said:
Agree with this 100%. I generally tend to come down more on the pro Levy side of debates, but I think this is disgusting. The collective salaries of those 550 non-playing staff is bound to be a fraction of what we're paying the players. Making them the government's responsibility now while the players keep all of theirs is just wrong IMO.

I also don't think that the excuse of "well everyone else is or will be doing it" washes here. It's either it's morally wrong or it isn't. Your morals shouldn't depend on that of anyone else's.

How is it "morally wrong" to protect your business?

Lighty64 · Mar 31, 2020

knowlespurs said:
Pretty distasteful to talk about transfers, getting his excuses in. Wtf has that got to do with pay cuts and the virus

it's because he knows when the window finally opens all the miserable ****s will be out in force wondering why he doesn't spend 200m without taking this moment into account

PeeEyeEmPee · Mar 31, 2020

Bobbins said:
How is it "morally wrong" to protect your business?

550 @ £2500 is £1,375,000 a month we're asking the government to help us out with to pay staff. That is almost nothing to a top-tier PL club, and if you're telling me that it's the difference between us staying afloat and going to the wall, then there are serious questions needing to be asked of management. Either way, we shouldn't be the government or tax-payer's problem. Between the chairman and the players, it should never have to come to this.

Yid-ol · Mar 31, 2020

PeeEyeEmPee said:
550 @ £2500 is £1,375,000 a month we're asking the government to help us out with to pay staff. That is almost nothing to a top-tier PL club. Between the chairman and the players, it should never have to come to this.

It shouldn't have come to the UK and most the world being in lock down with thousands of people dead.... But it has and people/businesses need to react.

Players reducing wages isn't as simple as asking them to do it, as been previously pointed out in here already.

PeeEyeEmPee · Mar 31, 2020

way to miss the point

Yid-ol · Mar 31, 2020

PeeEyeEmPee said:
way to miss the point

The point being Tottenham as a club and business are reducing costs to make sure the stability of the club is there in a time where there is a server lack of income coming into the club?

Or that you demand levy and players take wage cuts? When the players need to go through the Premier League, PFA and LMA before anything can be agreed

Lighty64 · Mar 31, 2020

Wsussexspur said:
I know. Thats why I have the feeling it is very much case of getting the excuse in early that given the circumstances when ever the transfer window opens don't expect us to be active in it. Which as we all know given the clear weakness in our squad which most of us have been banging on about for the 8 months or so of the season we are going to regress even further without these being addressed.

This situation again highlights how badly the club messed up not signing anyone for 18 months up to last summer.

Wonder how Jose has taken that line?

you do realise Jose most probably knows that the finances after everything are going to be unknown. if this season becomes null and void then every single club are going to be financially fucked. null and void means 5 less home games, no premier pay out, and a lot of money to be paid back to TV companies, and most probably a hit on sponsors

but hey ho, we should be swimming with money because we never bought a player in 2 windows, and made a massive profit 1 season and only spent 161m on players since the summer, and have a stadium to pay for

Bobbins · Mar 31, 2020

PeeEyeEmPee said:
550 @ £2500 is £1,375,000 a month we're asking the government to help us out with to pay staff. That is almost nothing to a top-tier PL club, and if you're telling me that it's the difference between us staying afloat and going to the wall, then there are serious questions needing to be asked of management. Either way, we shouldn't be the government or tax-payer's problem. Between the chairman and the players, it should never have to come to this.

The club's current income is £0 so it's approximately £1,375,000 more than the club can afford to pay for through revenue.

I and many others have already explained in detail why football finance isn't as simple as you think and why you can't just turn around and stop paying players either.

Go throw your mud at the players - they're the ones who need to make sacrifices. Don't blame the chairman who's trying to make sure that you still have a club to support at the end of all this.

Lighty64 · Mar 31, 2020

yankspurs said:
Did this fucking bald **** really decide the right time to announce he gave himself a 75% bonus for delivering a stadium late and over budget was when he announced he cut non playing staffs wages(the people who need their full salaries the most)?!?!?!? Im not even sure the most scummy corporate america ceo would be this fucking awful. Fucking clown.

his bonus was spread over 10 years in which JL most probably paid him. he wasn't the **** that fucked up all the fire systems or the cost (down to brexit) and he announced it 3 weeks after he received his bonus, and has also cut his own wages by 20%. he also put them on the 20% cut which given the choices is better than the dole que. you don't pay 550 people wages every week/month for doing nothing, and not have any idea when the virus will end.

thank fuck most of you don't own us, we would be worse off than Leeds financially

kannanmothalali · Mar 31, 2020

Lighty64 said:
his bonus was spread over 10 years in which JL most probably paid him. he wasn't the **** that fucked up all the fire systems or the cost (down to brexit) and he announced it 3 weeks after he received his bonus, and has also cut his own wages by 20%. he also put them on the 20% cut which given the choices is better than the dole que. you don't pay 550 people wages every week/month for doing nothing, and not have any idea when the virus will end.

thank fuck most of you don't own us, we would be worse off than Leeds financially

Is that why the players are getting paid in full. Inb4 muh contracts.

Lighty64 · Mar 31, 2020

LeSoupeKitchen said:
Absolutely this. It's a total F***ING disgrace that a couple of weeks in we're already dipping into the taxpayer money. Why am I not surprised it's us leading the way with this.

As for people saying the right business decision is to use the furlough system if it benefits you - I completely disagree. This is a scheme that has been rolled out as an emergency in about a day to make sure people can survive. It is so unbelievably open to abuse as a result. Companies should "do the right thing" for once in their lives and only use it if absolutely necessary.

Newcastle did this the other day, many others will follow eventually though West Ham won't have as many staff as anything to do with the stadium is covered by the council

dontcallme · Mar 31, 2020

kannanmothalali said:
Is that why the players are getting paid in full. Inb4 muh contracts.

Don't think Levy has the legal right to cut the players wages by 20%.

Lighty64 · Mar 31, 2020

kannanmothalali said:
Is that why the players are getting paid in full. Inb4 muh contracts.

the players are getting paid in full, because if they didn't agree they could leave due to it being a breach of contract. like Barcalona their wages cut was down to the players, the owners can't force it

swarvsta · Mar 31, 2020

PeeEyeEmPee said:
550 @ £2500 is £1,375,000 a month we're asking the government to help us out with to pay staff. That is almost nothing to a top-tier PL club, and if you're telling me that it's the difference between us staying afloat and going to the wall, then there are serious questions needing to be asked of management. Either way, we shouldn't be the government or tax-payer's problem. Between the chairman and the players, it should never have to come to this.

Yid-ol said:
It shouldn't have come to the UK and most the world being in lock down with thousands of people dead.... But it has and people/businesses need to react.

Players reducing wages isn't as simple as asking them to do it, as been previously pointed out in here already.

PeeEyeEmPee said:
way to miss the point

With all due respect, you are missing the point.

There is no stipulation that the ‘business will not stay afloat’.

An employer has the right to decide if they need a worker. They can terminate employment subject to employment law.

In the current situation, there are millions of workers that employers no longer require.

The government scheme was set out to protect EMPLOYEES. Without the scheme, these people would be at huge risk of termination.

It’s easy to say ‘the employer should cover the wages’. But why would they?

There are thousands of businesses globally who earn more than Tottenham Hotspur. They will all be running similar projects and furloughing staff.

It’s quite absurd to call Levy out for this. In fact, it probably wouldn’t even be entirely his decision.

Either way, this is an unprecedented situation, and almost all negatively impacted businesses will use this scheme during this time.

Lighty64 · Mar 31, 2020

riggi said:

he couldn't control C Palace finances properly without this epidemic, guarantee he wouldn't have carried on paying the 40-50 staff when they never had anything coming in, with no idea if and when this will finish. if it finishes at a time that's impossible to resume the season every club is going to be hit big, and a lot of lower teams which Palace was under his stewardship might go to the wall.

if we knew this virus would be finished and gone in the next month, I could understand the anger, but we might still be talking about this, this time next year

dontcallme · Mar 31, 2020

swarvsta said:
With all due respect, you are missing the point.

There is no stipulation that the ‘business will not stay afloat’.

An employer has the right to decide if they need a worker. They can terminate employment subject to employment law.

In the current situation, there are millions of workers that employers no longer require.

The government scheme was set out to protect EMPLOYEES. Without the scheme, these people would be at huge risk of termination.

It’s easy to say ‘the employer should cover the wages’. But why would they?

There are thousands of businesses globally who earn more than Tottenham Hotspur. They will all be running similar projects and furloughing staff.

It’s quite absurd to call Levy out for this. In fact, it probably wouldn’t even be entirely his decision.

Either way, this is an unprecedented situation, and almost all negatively impacted businesses will use this scheme during this time.

Yeah but Levy grr

Shadydan · Mar 31, 2020

dontcallme said:
Don't think Levy has the legal right to cut the players wages by 20%.

Correct, how would he justify it? He'd have to fine, that's not going to happen.

The players are already taking a 'pay cut' so to speak for not getting their bonuses for playing matches, I can't see a scenario where the players would be happy to take an even bigger cut.

The players really ought to take a cut but they'd argue that what's happened in the world and they are entitled to what their contract states.

dontcallme · Mar 31, 2020

Shadydan said:
Correct, how would he justify it? He'd have to fine, that's not going to happen.

The players are already taking a 'pay cut' so to speak for not getting their bonuses for playing matches, I can't see a scenario where the players would be happy to take an even bigger cut.

The players really ought to take a cut but they'd argue that what's happened in the world and they are entitled to what their contract states.

Reading through the thread I believe Levy is all powerful. He chooses our players, but only the bad ones. He controls the finances but is only culpable for the mistakes. Stands to reason he has the power to cut our players wages but has chosen not to in his evil plan to steal from the poor and give to the rich.

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

ENIC...

Well-Known Member

It is what it is

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008

I believe

Well-Known Member

Just-outside Edinburgh

Well-Known Member

Just-outside Edinburgh

I believe

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008

I believe

Well-Known Member

I believe

SC Supporter

I believe

Well-Known Member

I believe

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Similar threads