Furloughing staff

Phomesy · Apr 10, 2020

I'm not sure I understand the furore about this. The Job Retention scheme is there to help businesses - any business - whose means of income have been directly affected by Government policies to address the pandemic. Through "no fault of their own" Tottenham (and most sports) are incapable of trade and face ruinous losses.

This isn't going to be for "2 months" - it's possible there will be no mass spectator sport played for up to a YEAR. Or longer. Maybe games can be played behind closed doors achieving some sort of TV income but even that is highly dubious.

It's Daniel Levy's job to ensure the continuation of THFC in what is, to all intents and purposes, an existential threat. Furloughing and pay cuts is not only sensible but essential given the uncertainty facing the club/sport.

These employees will be far worse off if they have no job to come back too. As will we fans if we have no team to support any longer.

This is true of entire swathes of the economy. Theatre - the "West End" faces an existential threat. Cinema venues; tourism; airlines - anything that relies upon the movement and gathering of large numbers of people is, right now, facing existential threat. Now. Not June; not August. Right now. And for up to a year.

There's also the fact that Furloughed staff are allowed to seek work elsewhere while under furlough so can actually increase the income in these uncertain times.

I can't understand why all clubs aren't doing this. There's a general sense that this is a problem lasting a few weeks./months. It's not. It just isn't.

'O Zio · Apr 10, 2020

Phomesy said:
I'm not sure I understand the furore about this. The Job Retention scheme is there to help businesses - any business - whose means of income have been directly affected by Government policies to address the pandemic. Through "no fault of their own" Tottenham (and most sports) are incapable of trade and face ruinous losses.

This isn't going to be for "2 months" - it's possible there will be no mass spectator sport played for up to a YEAR. Or longer. Maybe games can be played behind closed doors achieving some sort of TV income but even that is highly dubious.

It's Daniel Levy's job to ensure the continuation of THFC in what is, to all intents and purposes, an existential threat. Furloughing and pay cuts is not only sensible but essential given the uncertainty facing the club/sport.

These employees will be far worse off if they have no job to come back too. As will we fans if we have no team to support any longer.

This is true of entire swathes of the economy. Theatre - the "West End" faces an existential threat. Cinema venues; tourism; airlines - anything that relies upon the movement and gathering of large numbers of people is, right now, facing existential threat. Now. Not June; not August. Right now. And for up to a year.

There's also the fact that Furloughed staff are allowed to seek work elsewhere while under furlough so can actually increase the income in these uncertain times.

I can't understand why all clubs aren't doing this. There's a general sense that this is a problem lasting a few weeks./months. It's not. It just isn't.

Nobody is denying that the club technically have the right to do this as obviously they are a business at the end of the day.

But surely you can see why it doesn't sit right with people that PL football clubs who routinely throw huge sums of money around at each other for transfers and have owners who are worth almost unimaginable sums of money, are choosing to dip their hand into the public fund rather than just cover the damage themselves?

Of course they're entitled to do it, but that doesn't mean they should. It's not that hard to understand is it? One of the guys on football weekly put it quite well the other day I thought. He said it's almost like someone with a full time job etc. going down to a soup kitchen put on by a homelessness charity. Is there technically a requirement that you have to be homeless to get a free meal? Probably not. But the fact that you could save yourself some money by scrounging a free meal intended for those much less fortunate doesn't mean it's an acceptable thing to do.

Phomesy · Apr 10, 2020

'O Zio said:
Nobody is denying that the club technically have the right to do this as obviously they are a business at the end of the day.

But surely you can see why it doesn't sit right with people that PL football clubs who routinely throw huge sums of money around at each other for transfers and have owners who are worth almost unimaginable sums of money, are choosing to dip their hand into the public fund rather than just cover the damage themselves?

Of course they're entitled to do it, but that doesn't mean they should. It's not that hard to understand is it? One of the guys on football weekly put it quite well the other day I thought. He said it's almost like someone with a full time job etc. going down to a soup kitchen put on by a homelessness charity. Is there technically a requirement that you have to be homeless to get a free meal? Probably not. But the fact that you could save yourself some money by scrounging a free meal intended for those much less fortunate doesn't mean it's an acceptable thing to do.

But I don't see it as a "technical" right - I see it as an essential practise in the face of an existential threat.

If it was just "levy pinching pennies" I'd have a problem with it. But I think this pandemic can and will be the financial end of many sporting clubs. And Levy thinks that too. Perhaps I'm wrong. Hope I am.

Have a look at the steps that have been taken in Australian Rules Football.

dontcallme · Apr 10, 2020

Phomesy said:
But I don't see it as a "technical" right - I see it as an essential practise in the face of an existential threat.

If it was just "levy pinching pennies" I'd have a problem with it. But I think this pandemic can and will be the financial end of many sporting clubs. And Levy thinks that too. Perhaps I'm wrong. Hope I am.

Have a look at the steps that have been taken in Australian Rules Football.

I think whichever side of the fence we are on we should be able to understand where the other side is coming from.

Phomesy · Apr 10, 2020

dontcallme said:
I think whichever side of the fence we are on we should be able to understand where the other side is coming from.

I certainly understand the impulse to look at this as "rich football club punishes low-paid staff/taxpayer to protect bottom line" and perhaps that is exactly what's going on in which case I will hold my hands up and say "Lexy is an avaricious **** and I'm a gullible fool".

But if/when football clubs start going bust in January 2021 with no sign of "full stadiums" (and perhaps football in any capacity) in the near future perhaps this decision will be revisited by some who are only too willing to stick the boot in on what is, on the surface at least, a prudent business decision that might not even make a dent in the financial catastrophe that will (and already is) hit the sport.

'O Zio · Apr 10, 2020

Phomesy said:
But I don't see it as a "technical" right - I see it as an essential practise in the face of an existential threat.

If it was just "levy pinching pennies" I'd have a problem with it. But I think this pandemic can and will be the financial end of many sporting clubs. And Levy thinks that too. Perhaps I'm wrong. Hope I am.

Have a look at the steps that have been taken in Australian Rules Football.

I understand that this is an existential crisis for many clubs, but right now spurs are not one of them. If they go bust it's certainly not going to be because of the relatively minor amount of money they're spending on admin staff is it?

Phomesy · Apr 10, 2020

'O Zio said:
I understand that this is an existential crisis for many clubs, but right now spurs are not one of them. If they go bust it's certainly not going to be because of the relatively minor amount of money they're spending on admin staff is it?

Relative to what? The Stadium debt is known. Players wages are a known. Players are also an asset that could potentially massively decrease given the circumstances.

When your ability to trade and bring in income is diminished you have to reduce operating costs. This would be the case in ordinary times. These are not "ordinary times". There is almost zero cashflow. For the foreseeable future. All the Club's assets (stadium and player transfer value) are worth precisely ZERO for the foreseeable.

Don't get me wrong I'd love for Joe Lewis to dip in his pocket and pay everyone everything. But he's not going to do that so it's Levy's job to do HIS JOB - which is to reduce operating costs until such a time as the future can be more readily predicted. That time is a looonnnggg way off.

I'm not defending Levy here - I've no skin in this game and think the cost of football in general is obscene BUT what he's done is simply prudent. It's not "immoral" - in fact, as I've noted above the furloughed staff can benefit from being furloughed because they can see work/income elsewhere while the furlough is in place.

Again I refer you to the Australian Rules Football reaction to the pandemic economic crisis. And Australia is much better placed to be able to scrape some sort of "playing season" at a much earlier point than the EPL is.

I really worry for Club's who seem to think they can ride this out. I don't think they can - don't think they fully realise how longterm this thing could be.

Hope I'm wrong. In fact I'd be happy for Levy to proved an avaricious **** and Spurs a totally shit club with no morals because that would mean none of what he's done was ever remotely necessary.

But I don't think that will be the case.

coys200 · Apr 10, 2020

Bonkers plan by West Ham. They will be £80m in debt to the owners and players. There’s a line between looking morally great and shocking business.

Trotter · Apr 10, 2020

coys200 said:
Bonkers plan by West Ham. They will be £80m in debt to the owners and players. There’s a line between looking morally great and shocking business.

What the hell are you talking about.

The owners are pumping £30m share capital as a rights issue into the club, and they have agreed a wage cut with David Moyes.
It is a NOT a loan from Sullivan and Gold, which you obviously seem to think it is.

Players have taken a partial wage deferral under condition non-playing staff wages are not cut, or the staff furloughed (same as Southampton did) which helps cashflow.
The owners are doing the right thing, funding their business, and have also got players to help out with the short term cashflow.

This will be the standard model, apart from at our club, where the players are adamant they won't defer wages because of what the club have done.

Lifelong · Apr 10, 2020

Unfortunately you might do the right thing morally and go down the pan....this is about survival...and to enable that some things might stick in the throat a bit...how about we let the smoke clear and then judge how people have acted..if Enic have acted like a bunch of tight fisted xxxx then bring it on, but if they’ve acted as only a responsible employer should have then give them the credit due. No one here knows exactly what our exposure is and us mere mortals probably never will but one thing is certain.. in true spurs style we couldn’t of picked a worse time to build a billion pound stadium..

Lighty64 · Apr 10, 2020

nailsy said:
OK

Obviously you haven't said he is, you've said he might be. I could just as easily say he might have decided that he doesn't want to lose money if the club goes bust and he might be selling off the clubs assets. There's nothing to indicate that he's doing either thing at the moment.

You started off by telling me that his money would be tied up in industry, paintings and a yacht and then a couple of posts later you're telling me he might be putting money into the club to pay everyone's wages.

And I know the club could be in trouble in a few months which is why I was fine with the club's decision to use the government scheme.

Ok I now very much doubt he is helping at all, never knew he owned 200 companies (us included). with that in mind though I wouldn't be shocked if he was the one to enforce what Levy is being blamed for. if every company he owns is suffering through this virus a good chance the majority if not all of them are having to use a scheme like furloughing. if 1 company doesn't then all those that are or something similar in other countries will want the same treatment and if his industries = 0 income, then god knows how many staff worldwide would want full salary or topping up.

'O Zio said:
Nobody is denying that the club technically have the right to do this as obviously they are a business at the end of the day.

But surely you can see why it doesn't sit right with people that PL football clubs who routinely throw huge sums of money around at each other for transfers and have owners who are worth almost unimaginable sums of money, are choosing to dip their hand into the public fund rather than just cover the damage themselves?

Of course they're entitled to do it, but that doesn't mean they should. It's not that hard to understand is it? One of the guys on football weekly put it quite well the other day I thought. He said it's almost like someone with a full time job etc. going down to a soup kitchen put on by a homelessness charity. Is there technically a requirement that you have to be homeless to get a free meal? Probably not. But the fact that you could save yourself some money by scrounging a free meal intended for those much less fortunate doesn't mean it's an acceptable thing to do.

look I know many are not happy but like my quote above, if Lewis has told Levy to use the function, Levy has to accept. I didn't know Lewis owned or part-owned 200 companies in 15 different countries. I have heard it mentioned something about golf resorts, and hotels, and properties but had no idea how many. Levy might have no option if Lewis has made the decision

jay2040 · Apr 10, 2020

dontcallme said:
I think whichever side of the fence we are on we should be able to understand where the other side is coming from.

What if you cant see over the fence

Lighty64 · Apr 10, 2020

Phomesy said:
I certainly understand the impulse to look at this as "rich football club punishes low-paid staff/taxpayer to protect bottom line" and perhaps that is exactly what's going on in which case I will hold my hands up and say "Lexy is an avaricious **** and I'm a gullible fool".

But if/when football clubs start going bust in January 2021 with no sign of "full stadiums" (and perhaps football in any capacity) in the near future perhaps this decision will be revisited by some who are only too willing to stick the boot in on what is, on the surface at least, a prudent business decision that might not even make a dent in the financial catastrophe that will (and already is) hit the sport.

I think a lot of the reactions are mainly in the ENIC group, not everybody as some have changed their view since all of this. they would be happy to see us struggle especially if it meant new owners

Phomesy · Apr 10, 2020

MK Yid said:
This will be the standard model, apart from at our club, where the players are adamant they won't defer wages because of what the club have done.

What have the club "done" that means the players won't defer wages in order to help potentially save the jobs of everyone involved at the club?

Player wages are all clubs biggest operating costs - if our players refuse to defer wages then they are doing far more damage to Spurs staff - and the club's future - than anything Levy could dream of doing.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

Trotter · Apr 11, 2020

Phomesy said:
What have the club "done" that means the players won't defer wages in order to help potentially save the jobs of everyone involved at the club?

Player wages are all clubs biggest operating costs - if our players refuse to defer wages then they are doing far more damage to Spurs staff - and the club's future - than anything Levy could dream of doing.

Or have I got that completely wrong?

They obviously feel that the club making the most profit in the country, should not be cutting the wages of all non-playing staff, many of them, no doubt their friends by 20%.
They feel that the club that is making the most profit in the League, and that the owners, one of them the 9th richest Briton in the world, should not be trying to "profiteer" out of the global pandemic.
They will feel that if there is a short term cashflow issue, the owners should be propping up the club, however they would be prepared to help if the club reverse their previously made decisions.
Did the owners pass the record profits back to the players/staff, no, so why should they feel compelled to help out the owners, when the owners have shown that all they care about is money ?

Our future is not under any immediate threat whatsoever, we have best balance sheet in the land, unless this thing is still here for the next 5 years, at which stage there will be no football, and the world will be in hyper-inflation and it will be survival of the fittest and battlefields on the streets.

If we have a short-term cashflow issue, ENIC need to (and will be forced to) step up and invest.

coys200 · Apr 11, 2020

MK Yid said:
What the hell are you talking about.

The owners are pumping £30m share capital as a rights issue into the club, and they have agreed a wage cut with David Moyes.
It is a NOT a loan from Sullivan and Gold, which you obviously seem to think it is.

Players have taken a partial wage deferral under condition non-playing staff wages are not cut, or the staff furloughed (same as Southampton did) which helps cashflow.
The owners are doing the right thing, funding their business, and have also got players to help out with the short term cashflow.

This will be the standard model, apart from at our club, where the players are adamant they won't defer wages because of what the club have done.

Please show me some evidence it’s a rights issue how would that even be possible with their set up. It’s a loan that they will charge ridiculous interest on like the current outstanding loans. Imo referring players wages is just storing up trouble could be an absolute minefield if players want to leave or this comes round again in Autumn it’s a disastrous idea for a club like West Ham.

MR_BEN · Apr 11, 2020

Doesn’t bother me at all.... would prefer they top up the wage but it is what it is.

As the PFA have pointed out -premier League football clubs generate billions in tax revenues each year.

So why shouldn’t you take something out in hard times?

to me - the club probably collect around £200m in various taxes which are passed over to the government each year.

We will be claiming at most £1.4m per month for the 550 staff and that assumes they are all at the upper cut off of £2500 which won’t be the case.

there are likely other reasons too - ie, banks who won’t give forgiveness or deferment on loans if you haven’t taken all other reasonable measures first.

hopefully - we come to a decent arrangement with the playing staff soon too.

Trotter · Apr 11, 2020

coys200 said:
Please show me some evidence it’s a rights issue how would that even be possible with their set up. It’s a loan that they will charge ridiculous interest on like the current outstanding loans. Imo referring players wages is just storing up trouble could be an absolute minefield if players want to leave or this comes round again in Autumn it’s a disastrous idea for a club like West Ham.

Just look anywhere.

For example

West Ham plan £30m rights issue to cover revenue shortcomings

West Ham have come up with a plan to tackle the financial problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic

www.theguardian.com

And maybe use just a little bit of common sense before committing to posting.
And it is only a partial deferral of wages, not full, and yes the club would have to pay back that player in full before selling him. But it helps the club with their cashflow. It is a good thing for West Ham, not a bad thing as you seem to have wierdly convinced yourself.

coys200 · Apr 11, 2020

MK Yid said:
Just look anywhere.

For example

West Ham plan £30m rights issue to cover revenue shortcomings

West Ham have come up with a plan to tackle the financial problems caused by the coronavirus pandemic

www.theguardian.com

And maybe use just a little bit of common sense before committing to posting.
And it is only a partial deferral of wages, not full, and yes the club would have to pay back that player in full before selling him. But it helps the club with their cashflow. It is a good thing for West Ham, not a bad thing as you seem to have wierdly convinced yourself.

There’s nothing in the statement that says it’s a rights issue. It says “cash injection “which could mean anything. In fact the whole statement is pretty vague with very little detail at all. They’ve been funnelling off massive interest since they bought the club why would they do a rights issue now it’s a loan.

That article is all pie in sky the it will end up being a pay day loan like they do every season.

Trotter · Apr 11, 2020

coys200 said:
There’s nothing in the statement that says it’s a rights issue. It says “cash injection “which could mean anything. In fact the whole statement is pretty vague with very little detail at all. They’ve been funnelling off massive interest since they bought the club why would they do a rights issue now it’s a loan.

You are beyond belief.
Just type in West Ham rights issue on the internet, and then feel free to apologise.

Fuck it, just keep living in your make belief world, you are giving Lighty64 a run for his money

Forums

What's new

Matches

Sportsbook

Members

Furloughing staff

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SC Supporter

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I believe

Well-Known Member

I believe

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads