ENIC...

dontcallme said:

Levy has been criticised for not cutting the players' salary even though he has no legal right to do so. Some have argued he should have asked them.

But when he asked an ex manager to take a temporary cut and defer the payments he gets criticised.

You can criticise the Levy defence army, I haven't negged you fwiw, but when you just twist everything into Levy and ENIC being bad then you are every bit as bad as those you criticise.

Click to expand...

Well who was the one that decided to furlough in the first place ?

He just changed the decision because it stank more than he predicted.

pelayo59 said:

It was 2 weeks ago and ENIC changed the decision?

Click to expand...

The damage was already done.

KikoSpurs said:

Well who was the one that decided to furlough in the first place ?

He just changed the decision because it stank more than he predicted.



The damage was already done.

Click to expand...

To his own reputation, maybe. But probably the more important bit is that the financial damage wasn't done to either the club's employees or the British taxpayer.

So there is little to no spurs news in Brazil but they are advertising the fact that Levy was but is not now furloughing players all I can say is that The reporting of spurs in a negative way is just reflecting how we are portrayed by the media in this country .
As I have said before Chelsea have been reported every day that they are helping out the NHS whereas spurs efforts in helping were reported the day the club announced they were handing over the stadium to help the NHS and not mentioned since .
If this does not tell you that the media only want to report to negative about spurs then nothing will .
I am immune to anti spurs reporting and am immune to anti Levy reporting .
We are no worse and in some areas better regards to helping their local people .
As for Levy for all his faults and his errors regards transfers I have no doubt at all that all his decisions are for the betterment of the club even if they are wrong decisions as in the furlough and I read it as he made the furlough decision for the benefit of the club and realising the good was outweighed by the negative press and reversed his decision .
Generally if you support spurs you must get used to the haters they will never go away .
As for negative reporting in Brazil all I can think to say is so what its what we have here why should it be different there .

buckley said:

So there is little to no spurs news in Brazil but they are advertising the fact that Levy was but is not now furloughing players all I can say is that The reporting of spurs in a negative way is just reflecting how we are portrayed by the media in this country .
As I have said before Chelsea have been reported every day that they are helping out the NHS whereas spurs efforts in helping were reported the day the club announced they were handing over the stadium to help the NHS and not mentioned since .
If this does not tell you that the media only want to report to negative about spurs then nothing will .
I am immune to anti spurs reporting and am immune to anti Levy reporting .
We are no worse and in some areas better regards to helping their local people .
As for Levy for all his faults and his errors regards transfers I have no doubt at all that all his decisions are for the betterment of the club even if they are wrong decisions as in the furlough and I read it as he made the furlough decision for the benefit of the club and realising the good was outweighed by the negative press and reversed his decision .
Generally if you support spurs you must get used to the haters they will never go away .
As for negative reporting in Brazil all I can think to say is so what its what we have here why should it be different there .

Click to expand...

Well yes, I guess so. If we aren't a widely known club in Brazil, who would think of trying to put a particular angle on the story?

Metalhead said:

Well yes, I guess so. If we aren't a widely known club in Brazil, who would think of trying to put a particular angle on the story?

Click to expand...

Someone who bases their opinions on available local journalism. Or, more succinctly, plagiarism.

KikoSpurs said:

Well who was the one that decided to furlough in the first place ?

He just changed the decision because it stank more than he predicted.

The damage was already done.

Click to expand...

What has my post got to do with furloughing?

I pointed out that people have criticised Levy for not asking the players to take a pay cut but then criticise him for asking our ex manager to take a pay cut.

Guessing you're just moving the goalposts to suit yourself.

buckley said:

As I have said before Chelsea have been reported every day that they are helping out the NHS whereas spurs efforts in helping were reported the day the club announced they were handing over the stadium to help the NHS and not mentioned since .
If this does not tell you that the media only want to report to negative about spurs then nothing will .

Click to expand...

I think we all need to be careful about how we view media stories. I'm sure there will be some reporters who have an actual agenda, as there will be some who genuinely try to report an unbiased truth, but in the main we can think of the "mass media journalists" more as panderers, sensationalists or just wind up merchants.

If a story about how rich and evil Daniel Levy is gets more views than a financial scrutiny story then that will tend to be what gets published. Opinion pieces require very little in the way of research or analysis and will often create more revenue so they are prolific. And with so many media outlets providing 24 hour coverage there is competition for views which drive stories to the more and more sensational extremes.

To take your example, I haven't personally seen anything about Chelsea helping the NHS beyond what people on here (maybe just you?) have referenced, however I have seen Spurs mentioned a couple of times on the BBC reporting, both online and televised. So what any one of us thinks is "the media" is really just the media channels we watch at the times we watch them. If somebody gets their main "media hit" from TalkSport then they will have a very different view from somebody who reads a broadsheet.

It's my personal gripe about so much of the ENIC debate honestly - how some people cherry pick headlines that back up their existing views and then recycle them as "proof" without taking the time to research or even consider the subject matter. It's the easy option, but how often in life do we find that the easy option is the best option?

KikoSpurs said:

The news about furloughing the staff + Poch's pay cut have hit the news here in Brazil. Tottenham was insignificant here yet we manage to be in the headline for the worst reason ever.

Congratulations, Levy. You are really shit.

Edit:

Apparently the Levy's defense army already came to downvote me.

You guys are a fucking disgrace.

Click to expand...

Hot off the presses, the club is talking to ALL members of the players/coaches unions who are ACTIVELY receiving a wage about deferrals. The club change the pay ONLY if the other party agrees to the change. The club is not illegally forcing a payment change/breaking the contract by asking the other party to consider the current change in environment/GLOBAL PANDEMIC.

So freaking what, why should Poch not be asked? He can say no. NONE of the people actively receiving payment for coaching/playing are actually actively playing/coaching in order to earn their wage currently. The club is not forcing him to accept a change of payment, they are asking him to consider it. Not asking Poch & his staff would be irresponsible; especially if those deferrals allow the club to continue to pay lower earning employees at 100% wages rather than using furlough.

You cannot make the moral arguments against the furlough wage cuts and then act as if it is immoral to ask Poch & staff to defer some/all of their payments. Poch & staff can say no to the deferrals if they wish. It is their right to say no to the deferrals AND it is the right of THFC to request that all contracted high-wage individuals consider a deferral/reduction of payments options during the Covid-19 pandemic. The club does not have the right to change the contracted payments without the other parties CONSENT. Doing so would have legal and/or financial ramifications due to the breach in contract.

Poch & his staff are not a protected class of citizen, there is very little difference between them and the active coaching staff at this time (11 am zoom sessions are not what I would consider "active"). Both groups of coaches are/were members of the coaches union, are payed by specific negotiated contracts, are earning a higher than normal wage (top tier of the clubs wage with a similar structure to something the players may be earning), and are not actively fulfilling ALL of the requirements of an active first team coach.

The only basis you have is that the club agreed to pay them x amount for no longer actively working in order to void out a previous contract. The club does not expect them to be actively working...okay, agreed. The club also did not expect a global pandemic to shut down the Premier League and the majority of its income sources when both parties agreed to the payoff contracts for Poch & his staff. They are being reported to be asking for the consideration of payment deferrals in light of the Covid 19 pandemic shutdown. Even if they are asking for a reduction in payment amount instead of deferrals, so what. We are in an economic crisis due to a global pandemic, the club did not create Covid 19. The club can ASK for a review of all contracted payments for players, active coaces, former coaches, business services providers, creditors, and any other obligation it has under these circumstances. The sponsors also have the right to ASK the club for a review of income producing contracts and the club can accept/deny any suggested changes to terms.

Everyone has the right to ASK for a change of terms. While tempted by the anti-Levy vitriol in your post, I did not downvote your post. I do not agree with your Levy comment or your edit; however, I would like for people to start thinking about the important facts the media are leaving out of this type of news article. The media has an agenda and Daniel Levy tends to be a target.

On the front page, the Evening Standard published a story on the this topic. I do not know where the Poch & Staff deferral angle originated but the source could be the Evening Standard. If so, please be aware that they have been reported to be using the UK government furlough program themselves. Any criticism of another entity (THFC) for trying to reduce costs due to Covid 19 without a disclaimer stating their own use of government funds to reduce costs; is itself inappropriate, manipulative, and unethical in my mind.

Some Spurs players felt undervalued in past, making pay cut deal complex



By Charlie Eccleshare Apr 23, 2020 6

As their London rivals Arsenal and Chelsea confirmed this week that their players will take wage cuts, at Tottenham Hotspur such an agreement remains elusive.
Part of the reason why Spurs have not yet reached an agreement, The Athletic understands, is because of a perception among some of the players that they have been undervalued in the past. This is a sentiment that, for some, dates back to the end of the 2016-17 season when the players were disappointed that finishing second did not lead to a big round of pay rises.
Eyebrows were then raised last year when there was no gesture, besides pre-agreed bonuses and an IWC watch each, to mark the phenomenal achievement of reaching the Champions League final. Tough, drawn-out negotiations over contract renewals have been a feature of the Daniel Levy regime meanwhile — though star players like Harry Kane are on hefty wages.
Nonetheless, players are wary of taking wage cuts or deferrals until they are absolutely sure the money is essential for the club and they are not being taken advantage of. The atmosphere was worsened at Spurs by the decision to furlough non-playing staff, which has since been reversed, along with the club’s directors taking a significant pay-cut. When he made the initial decision Levy said he hoped “players and coaches [would do] their bit for the football ecosystem”, which added to the sense he was attempting to force the squad’s hand.
The furloughing frustrated a number of players, who are understood to have suggested — via the player representatives Harry Kane and Hugo Lloris — to the club’s hierarchy that the decision be reversed.
It should be stressed, however, that there are other factors that explain why no deferral or wage cut has as yet been agreed. Reaching an agreement that satisfies all squad members is extremely difficult, and in the Premier League only Chelsea, Arsenal, Watford, Southampton and West Ham have as yet agreed cuts or deferrals with their players.
There is no set deadline as such, but Spurs want to have an agreement in place before their next payday on April 30. It is understood that cuts of up to 30 per cent have been proposed by the club to the players, which the club feels is justified given the financial uncertainty the COVID-19 crisis has unleashed. As explained previously, Spurs could be especially vulnerable given the relatively high proportion of their income that comes from match days and other events. Being able to host matches and external events underpinned the business model behind moving into the £1 billion Tottenham Hotspur Stadium last year.
In response to some players feeling undervalued, the club may also feel it’s their relative frugality that has allowed them to compete at the top level with clubs that have far bigger budgets. It’s also why they posted the highest pre-tax profit of any Premier League club in their last set of annual accounts. Though there is a view that had more of those profits been invested in the team over the last few years, they would have been even more successful.
As for what’s being suggested now, like with any Premier League club there are lots of different options on the table, ranging in timeframe and including both deferrals and cuts as options. What makes the process so challenging is not only the divergence in player salaries and various different clauses in each of their contracts, but also the fact that it is still not known when the season will resume, if at all. The players understand sacrifices and compromises will have to be made, but these are huge decisions being made on incomplete information at a hugely challenging time.
And with first-team wages ranging from around £1,000 a week for Japhet Tanganga to £200,000 for Kane and Tanguy Ndombele, one can see why negotiations are not straightforward. Players also have separate commitments — many are involved for instance in the Players Together initiative that sees them donate money to the NHS.
Ultimately, the Spurs players want to make the decision as a group — though there have been suggestions that a lack of leadership has made reaching a decision even more difficult. The expectation from various sources is that the talks between the club’s hierarchy and the players are likely to rumble on.
In the background is the question of whether head coach Jose Mourinho will take a pay cut or deferral, as Premier League managers David Moyes, Eddie Howe and Graham Potter have done already. The expectation is that Mourinho will take whatever reduction or deferral is agreed for the players, with his focus for the moment on coaching the team.
Despite the logistical challenges, that must feel like a breeze compared to the intractable wage dilemma facing the club’s squad.

Saoirse said:

Some Spurs players felt undervalued in past, making pay cut deal complex

By Charlie Eccleshare Apr 23, 2020

6

As their London rivals Arsenal and Chelsea confirmed this week that their players will take wage cuts, at Tottenham Hotspur such an agreement remains elusive.
Part of the reason why Spurs have not yet reached an agreement, The Athletic understands, is because of a perception among some of the players that they have been undervalued in the past. This is a sentiment that, for some, dates back to the end of the 2016-17 season when the players were disappointed that finishing second did not lead to a big round of pay rises.
Eyebrows were then raised last year when there was no gesture, besides pre-agreed bonuses and an IWC watch each, to mark the phenomenal achievement of reaching the Champions League final. Tough, drawn-out negotiations over contract renewals have been a feature of the Daniel Levy regime meanwhile — though star players like Harry Kane are on hefty wages.
Nonetheless, players are wary of taking wage cuts or deferrals until they are absolutely sure the money is essential for the club and they are not being taken advantage of. The atmosphere was worsened at Spurs by the decision to furlough non-playing staff, which has since been reversed, along with the club’s directors taking a significant pay-cut. When he made the initial decision Levy said he hoped “players and coaches [would do] their bit for the football ecosystem”, which added to the sense he was attempting to force the squad’s hand.
The furloughing frustrated a number of players, who are understood to have suggested — via the player representatives Harry Kane and Hugo Lloris — to the club’s hierarchy that the decision be reversed.
It should be stressed, however, that there are other factors that explain why no deferral or wage cut has as yet been agreed. Reaching an agreement that satisfies all squad members is extremely difficult, and in the Premier League only Chelsea, Arsenal, Watford, Southampton and West Ham have as yet agreed cuts or deferrals with their players.
There is no set deadline as such, but Spurs want to have an agreement in place before their next payday on April 30. It is understood that cuts of up to 30 per cent have been proposed by the club to the players, which the club feels is justified given the financial uncertainty the COVID-19 crisis has unleashed. As explained previously, Spurs could be especially vulnerable given the relatively high proportion of their income that comes from match days and other events. Being able to host matches and external events underpinned the business model behind moving into the £1 billion Tottenham Hotspur Stadium last year.
In response to some players feeling undervalued, the club may also feel it’s their relative frugality that has allowed them to compete at the top level with clubs that have far bigger budgets. It’s also why they posted the highest pre-tax profit of any Premier League club in their last set of annual accounts. Though there is a view that had more of those profits been invested in the team over the last few years, they would have been even more successful.
As for what’s being suggested now, like with any Premier League club there are lots of different options on the table, ranging in timeframe and including both deferrals and cuts as options. What makes the process so challenging is not only the divergence in player salaries and various different clauses in each of their contracts, but also the fact that it is still not known when the season will resume, if at all. The players understand sacrifices and compromises will have to be made, but these are huge decisions being made on incomplete information at a hugely challenging time.
And with first-team wages ranging from around £1,000 a week for Japhet Tanganga to £200,000 for Kane and Tanguy Ndombele, one can see why negotiations are not straightforward. Players also have separate commitments — many are involved for instance in the Players Together initiative that sees them donate money to the NHS.
Ultimately, the Spurs players want to make the decision as a group — though there have been suggestions that a lack of leadership has made reaching a decision even more difficult. The expectation from various sources is that the talks between the club’s hierarchy and the players are likely to rumble on.
In the background is the question of whether head coach Jose Mourinho will take a pay cut or deferral, as Premier League managers David Moyes, Eddie Howe and Graham Potter have done already. The expectation is that Mourinho will take whatever reduction or deferral is agreed for the players, with his focus for the moment on coaching the team.
Despite the logistical challenges, that must feel like a breeze compared to the intractable wage dilemma facing the club’s squad.

Click to expand...

So basically we have a set of players who wanted rewarding financially for not actually winning something?

There’s a reason right there why we didn’t win either!

Edit: it’s part of the loser mentality that’s held this club back for decades and I include some of the fans in that.

spursfan77 said:

So basically we have a set of players who wanted rewarding financially for not actually winning something?

There’s a reason right there why we didn’t win either!

Click to expand...

There’s also a comment about a lack of leadership amongst the players. Recurring theme through the last 50 years lol ?

Trees said:

There’s also a comment about a lack of leadership amongst the players. Recurring theme through the last 50 years lol ?

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t be surprised at that either to be fair. Is Lloris the kind of person who would sort this kind of thing out, I’m not so sure. Being French I suspect he’d rather riot. Kane has been very quiet publicly since this has start and as England captain I would have expected him to take more of a public role if anything needs saying (maybe it hasn’t).

If any of the Senior players on big money contracts are expecting Tanganga to give the same percentage paycut, then the lack of leadership within the squad is a serious issue. Considering London's cost of living, I am sure that a good proportion of the non-playing staff make more than Tanganga's 52k a year.

A 20% cut for Kane/Ndombele saves the club 40k a week for each player and Tanganga is only paid 52k a Year. If the Senior players agree to cut Tanganga's paycheck, then they need to seriously reevaluate their own personal priorities. Fairplay is welcome; unfortunately, there is probably less difference between comparison of the Director's to the regular non-playing staff than the Senior players to the academy graduate contracts.

A Senior player on 10k a week wages taking a 20% paycut reduces their pay by 2000 pounds, double Tanganga's entire regular paycheck. Granted, he is only losing 200 pounds a week with a 20% reduction and may not have many bills at this point in his life. However, I would expect the team leaders to exclude academy players from the wage cut/deferral when negotiating with the first team.

If you were screaming about the furlough, you cannot now support treating academy contracts the same as first team contracts. Let me be clear, I do not have a problem with everyone at the club from top to bottom taking a paycut/deferral IF it guarantees their future employment. I do believe that the top earners should bear a larger proportion of the cut/deferral because they SHOULD be more able to weather the covid 19 situation better than the non-playing staff or the academy players.

Before you start about issues already addressed earlier in this thread, if a Senior player cannot afford a deferral/paycut at this stage, then that is because of their own personal decisions. I am not sympathetic to someone earning a footballers wage and spending all of it. You have to work really hard to spend the amount of money these guys make. In the USA, any sports agent is required to be a registered financial advisor with the SEC and all of the penalties/education/licensing/exams/continuing education that comes with it. I have no clue what obligations are required in the UK but someone should be a fiduciary representative for these guys. I am positive Levy/THFC know some good fiduciary advisors they will suggest if they are needed by the staff/players. I am positive Levy/THFC know some bad fiduciary advisors they will discourage if they are needed by the staff/players. Remember, the more financially stable the staff & players are, the less likely to ask/need a pay raise from the club. It is a mutually beneficial relationship for the club to make sure the players have solid representation for their money. The club wants the players to retain the wealth it pays the players, even if only to ensure the players don't need more money from the club or seek out a bigger paycheck at another club with a transfer request/Bosman.

Saoirse said:

Some Spurs players felt undervalued in past, making pay cut deal complex

By Charlie Eccleshare Apr 23, 2020

6

As their London rivals Arsenal and Chelsea confirmed this week that their players will take wage cuts, at Tottenham Hotspur such an agreement remains elusive.
Part of the reason why Spurs have not yet reached an agreement, The Athletic understands, is because of a perception among some of the players that they have been undervalued in the past. This is a sentiment that, for some, dates back to the end of the 2016-17 season when the players were disappointed that finishing second did not lead to a big round of pay rises.
Eyebrows were then raised last year when there was no gesture, besides pre-agreed bonuses and an IWC watch each, to mark the phenomenal achievement of reaching the Champions League final. Tough, drawn-out negotiations over contract renewals have been a feature of the Daniel Levy regime meanwhile — though star players like Harry Kane are on hefty wages.
Nonetheless, players are wary of taking wage cuts or deferrals until they are absolutely sure the money is essential for the club and they are not being taken advantage of. The atmosphere was worsened at Spurs by the decision to furlough non-playing staff, which has since been reversed, along with the club’s directors taking a significant pay-cut. When he made the initial decision Levy said he hoped “players and coaches [would do] their bit for the football ecosystem”, which added to the sense he was attempting to force the squad’s hand.
The furloughing frustrated a number of players, who are understood to have suggested — via the player representatives Harry Kane and Hugo Lloris — to the club’s hierarchy that the decision be reversed.
It should be stressed, however, that there are other factors that explain why no deferral or wage cut has as yet been agreed. Reaching an agreement that satisfies all squad members is extremely difficult, and in the Premier League only Chelsea, Arsenal, Watford, Southampton and West Ham have as yet agreed cuts or deferrals with their players.
There is no set deadline as such, but Spurs want to have an agreement in place before their next payday on April 30. It is understood that cuts of up to 30 per cent have been proposed by the club to the players, which the club feels is justified given the financial uncertainty the COVID-19 crisis has unleashed. As explained previously, Spurs could be especially vulnerable given the relatively high proportion of their income that comes from match days and other events. Being able to host matches and external events underpinned the business model behind moving into the £1 billion Tottenham Hotspur Stadium last year.
In response to some players feeling undervalued, the club may also feel it’s their relative frugality that has allowed them to compete at the top level with clubs that have far bigger budgets. It’s also why they posted the highest pre-tax profit of any Premier League club in their last set of annual accounts. Though there is a view that had more of those profits been invested in the team over the last few years, they would have been even more successful.
As for what’s being suggested now, like with any Premier League club there are lots of different options on the table, ranging in timeframe and including both deferrals and cuts as options. What makes the process so challenging is not only the divergence in player salaries and various different clauses in each of their contracts, but also the fact that it is still not known when the season will resume, if at all. The players understand sacrifices and compromises will have to be made, but these are huge decisions being made on incomplete information at a hugely challenging time.
And with first-team wages ranging from around £1,000 a week for Japhet Tanganga to £200,000 for Kane and Tanguy Ndombele, one can see why negotiations are not straightforward. Players also have separate commitments — many are involved for instance in the Players Together initiative that sees them donate money to the NHS.
Ultimately, the Spurs players want to make the decision as a group — though there have been suggestions that a lack of leadership has made reaching a decision even more difficult. The expectation from various sources is that the talks between the club’s hierarchy and the players are likely to rumble on.
In the background is the question of whether head coach Jose Mourinho will take a pay cut or deferral, as Premier League managers David Moyes, Eddie Howe and Graham Potter have done already. The expectation is that Mourinho will take whatever reduction or deferral is agreed for the players, with his focus for the moment on coaching the team.
Despite the logistical challenges, that must feel like a breeze compared to the intractable wage dilemma facing the club’s squad.

Click to expand...

Lol. Why did they sign the contracts then?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always felt as though the rate at which we dish out new contracts in line with players' improving performance is quite unusual.

I mean thats not exactly news. We’ve had rumblings on that for a few years now and players have really just been winding down their contracts. I guess its just been magnified by the pandemic but this unrest has been there for a while. And thats not a squad leadership problem, this is on the board. They’ve failed to make the players feel wanted and valued.

With regards to the now, it is a squad leadership problem that our club captain and the national teams captain(our vice captain) are silent on this whole thing. Maybe if the game returns this season, Jan should be captain whenever hes on the pitch. He’s been out there and making himself available to the club. Hugo and Kane apparently have not. And it is a squad leadership problem if these guys really expect Tanganga and other academy players to take the same cut.

pagevee said:

If any of the Senior players on big money contracts are expecting Tanganga to give the same percentage paycut, then the lack of leadership within the squad is a serious issue. Considering London's cost of living, I am sure that a good proportion of the non-playing staff make more than Tanganga's 52k a year.

A 20% cut for Kane/Ndombele saves the club 40k a week for each player and Tanganga is only paid 52k a Year. If the Senior players agree to cut Tanganga's paycheck, then they need to seriously reevaluate their own personal priorities. Fairplay is welcome; unfortunately, there is probably less difference between comparison of the Director's to the regular non-playing staff than the Senior players to the academy graduate contracts.

A Senior player on 10k a week wages taking a 20% paycut reduces their pay by 2000 pounds, double Tanganga's entire regular paycheck. Granted, he is only losing 200 pounds a week with a 20% reduction and may not have many bills at this point in his life. However, I would expect the team leaders to exclude academy players from the wage cut/deferral when negotiating with the first team.

If you were screaming about the furlough, you cannot now support treating academy contracts the same as first team contracts. Let me be clear, I do not have a problem with everyone at the club from top to bottom taking a paycut/deferral IF it guarantees their future employment. I do believe that the top earners should bear a larger proportion of the cut/deferral because they SHOULD be more able to weather the covid 19 situation better than the non-playing staff or the academy players.

Before you start about issues already addressed earlier in this thread, if a Senior player cannot afford a deferral/paycut at this stage, then that is because of their own personal decisions. I am not sympathetic to someone earning a footballers wage and spending all of it. You have to work really hard to spend the amount of money these guys make. In the USA, any sports agent is required to be a registered financial advisor with the SEC and all of the penalties/education/licensing/exams/continuing education that comes with it. I have no clue what obligations are required in the UK but someone should be a fiduciary representative for these guys. I am positive Levy/THFC know some good fiduciary advisors they will suggest if they are needed by the staff/players. I am positive Levy/THFC know some bad fiduciary advisors they will discourage if they are needed by the staff/players. Remember, the more financially stable the staff & players are, the less likely to ask/need a pay raise from the club. It is a mutually beneficial relationship for the club to make sure the players have solid representation for their money. The club wants the players to retain the wealth it pays the players, even if only to ensure the players don't need more money from the club or seek out a bigger paycheck at another club with a transfer request/Bosman.

Click to expand...

Regarding financial advice, is that within the remit of the PFA?

pagevee said:

If any of the Senior players on big money contracts are expecting Tanganga to give the same percentage paycut, then the lack of leadership within the squad is a serious issue. Considering London's cost of living, I am sure that a good proportion of the non-playing staff make more than Tanganga's 52k a year.

A 20% cut for Kane/Ndombele saves the club 40k a week for each player and Tanganga is only paid 52k a Year. If the Senior players agree to cut Tanganga's paycheck, then they need to seriously reevaluate their own personal priorities. Fairplay is welcome; unfortunately, there is probably less difference between comparison of the Director's to the regular non-playing staff than the Senior players to the academy graduate contracts.

A Senior player on 10k a week wages taking a 20% paycut reduces their pay by 2000 pounds, double Tanganga's entire regular paycheck. Granted, he is only losing 200 pounds a week with a 20% reduction and may not have many bills at this point in his life. However, I would expect the team leaders to exclude academy players from the wage cut/deferral when negotiating with the first team.

If you were screaming about the furlough, you cannot now support treating academy contracts the same as first team contracts. Let me be clear, I do not have a problem with everyone at the club from top to bottom taking a paycut/deferral IF it guarantees their future employment. I do believe that the top earners should bear a larger proportion of the cut/deferral because they SHOULD be more able to weather the covid 19 situation better than the non-playing staff or the academy players.

Before you start about issues already addressed earlier in this thread, if a Senior player cannot afford a deferral/paycut at this stage, then that is because of their own personal decisions. I am not sympathetic to someone earning a footballers wage and spending all of it. You have to work really hard to spend the amount of money these guys make. In the USA, any sports agent is required to be a registered financial advisor with the SEC and all of the penalties/education/licensing/exams/continuing education that comes with it. I have no clue what obligations are required in the UK but someone should be a fiduciary representative for these guys. I am positive Levy/THFC know some good fiduciary advisors they will suggest if they are needed by the staff/players. I am positive Levy/THFC know some bad fiduciary advisors they will discourage if they are needed by the staff/players. Remember, the more financially stable the staff & players are, the less likely to ask/need a pay raise from the club. It is a mutually beneficial relationship for the club to make sure the players have solid representation for their money. The club wants the players to retain the wealth it pays the players, even if only to ensure the players don't need more money from the club or seek out a bigger paycheck at another club with a transfer request/Bosman.

Click to expand...

Maybe they should approach it as tax thresholds. Eg: under a certain amount per year, you don't pay any tax, and then rates go up, as your salary increases. So, let's say they decide something along these lines on a per anum basis:

Per year basis:

Group One: 100k or less = 1%. (Player weekly average is approx 1 to 2k per week)
Group Two: 100 to 250k = 2%
Group Three: 250 to 500k = 4%
Group Four: 500 to 1m = 6%
Group Six: 1m to 3m = 10%
Group Seven: 3m to 5m = 12%
Group Eight: 5m to 8m = 15%
Group Nine: 8m ++++ = 20%

Or something to that effect. But it would seem like a fair way to determine type and depth of cut each player makes based on their financial realities.

Metalhead said:

Regarding financial advice, is that within the remit of the PFA?

Click to expand...

Honestly, as an American who grew up with the Teamsters, I cannot answer that without bias.

I truly do not know the answer to your question. I would highly encourage anyone to seek financial advice independent of any organization. By independent, I mean one who is paid by you, not the union/company/club/organization. An independent FA in the FIDUCIARY capacity is only paid a flat proportion of your money managed; therefore, the more money you have the more money they make. Their priority is to protect your money and make it grow. Not just because it is the ethical thing to do but because they directly benefit from your benefit. Their pay is decreased if they lose you money; therefore, your interest and the independent FA's interest are in alignment. This makes it a FIDUCIARY relationship as a mutually beneficial relationship. The Financial Advisor benefits from the percentage fee on your money managed and you benefit from their expertise. Both parties are incentivised to increase your own personal net worth. Easy Peasy...

Metalhead said:

Regarding financial advice, is that within the remit of the PFA?

Click to expand...

Let's hope not, they are usually useless when anything important occurs and certainly don't seem to ever consider the clubs' perspective

pagevee said:

Honestly, as an American who grew up with the Teamsters, I cannot answer that without bias.

I truly do not know the answer to your question. I would highly encourage anyone to seek financial advice independent of any organization. By independent, I mean one who is paid by you, not the union/company/club/organization. An independent FA in the FIDUCIARY capacity is only paid a flat proportion of your money managed; therefore, the more money you have the more money they make. Their priority is to protect your money and make it grow. Not just because it is the ethical thing to do but because they directly benefit from your benefit. Their pay is decreased if they lose you money; therefore, your interest and the independent FA's interest are in alignment. This makes it a FIDUCIARY relationship as a mutually beneficial relationship. The Financial Advisor benefits from the percentage fee on your money managed and you benefit from their expertise. Both parties are incentivised to increase your own personal net worth. Easy Peasy...

Click to expand...

I was curious because as a players union, part of their remit should be to provide some kind of direction to their members. Having looked at their website, they partnered with an independent financial advice company back in 2011 in order to assist in educating players on how best to manage their finances. They also recommend that their players get expert and independent advice amongst other things.