ENIC...

Lighty64

PC huh what a joke, avatar changed
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
9,667
Fucking hell mate I hope with these job cuts that your position on the payroll hasn't been affected, I'm sure the chairman would miss not having you around. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
I receive UC because I'm not well enough to work

but I could understand if every big company that employs staff that are totally unable to work, will follow suit. Just because people are rich it doesn't mean that during times like now they should pay out of their own pockets. no one runs a business to make a loss unless they are playing with other peoples or money laundering
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,951
But even though from a business perspective it makes sense if assistance is there that you take it, the decision in regards to the non-football staff has been a PR disaster and I don't know why they have done it. The cost of these staff must be a tiny percentage out of the annual budget so what is the point really, and any financial saving is not going to be greater than the bad Press it gets. I think it's very poor form.
Because it isn't just about saving a bit of money on the bar staff wages, it's about levelling all the staff (eg. the admin bloke earning 150k) and protecting those jobs.

The club's financial year ended yesterday (I believe) so the timing will be more due to that than anything else I imagine. It's a time where I think the board are more concerned about the people who work for the club than about PR - but of course we aren't allowed to view anything as positive anymore!

Now more than ever I think that as fans we need to chill the hell out, take care of ourselves and our neighbours, and let the world of football sort itself out. Sure, we can come on here to chat about it and blow off steam, but when you see the same people churning out negativity at every junction it's fucking tiring!
 

pelayo59

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
1,023
Not stopping Chelski from buying players, seems they've agreed 31M for another player today.
And not stopping us that we already identified earlier Atal/Aarons as our right back options, Osimhen as a backup striker etc...
 

thekneaf

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
1,083
Cutting all non playing staff by 20% is not the same as furloughing staff.

If you earn less than £37,500 a year furloughing would result in a 20% reduction in earnings. For those on more than that the loss would be an increasing percentage as your salary increases.

We probably are furloughing a bunch of staff who are going down to 80% salary, and what I'm guessing is getting lost in our shit comms is that, in solidarity, the rest of the non furloughed, still very much furiously working non playing staff are also taking that same 20% reduction. And then Levy is throwing the ball at the PFA and saying will you also do your bit.

The above might be incorrect, but not based on any currently available information.
 

Chirpystheman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
114
Everyone is losing their heads a little on this. I also think its crazy that Spurs are being bashed so heavily for this. BT are trying to cut 13000 jobs due to this virus, virgin atlantic 8500 jobs at risk and wanting a government bailout. It makes business sense to do what we are doing. Also in the initial article i read by martin samuel he stated Levy had deferred the payment of the bonus so the figure of 7m is incorrect based on that. The government should never have done this scheme without putting a few barriers in place to be able to claim it. However the abuse should actially be directed at those who deserve it. The players, PFA, FA, Premier league and the broadcasters.

For all those outraged by it. How many of you have frozen your sky sports subscription even though you can afford to pay it still. On what grounds have you done that. Is it because it makes financial sense. What about the people at sky who will lose their jobs because the millions of paused subscriptions. That £18 really going to help you keep your house/flat. Surely with staying in you can afford it although it serves no purpose. If Levy had come out and said oh we are making 300 people redundant due to no work etc everyone would be kicking off saying he should use the furlough scheme and hes not looking after his employees. Im marrying someone who was put on furlough as of the 1st and she was relieved as at lwast it secures her job for a little bit longer where as before it was looking like she could lose it. Levy has protected the staff who are not currently working its what all good bosses should do. He also called out the powers of the game to do something.

I didnt see newcastle getting this much hate. Why we getting it. The club stands to lose out on 150m+ from loss of revenue sponsorship prize money from CL and Prem as if the TV deals are fulfilled the prizemoney will be much reduced. Spurs make over 4m a home game thats all gone kit sponsors will be wantibg money back. So saving 2-3m when possible is smart. We might not see football until Xmas why should the club not take precautions.
 

JUSTINSIGNAL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
11,864
I'm quoting this post but my point is aimed at the collection of your recent posts, and a number of other similar ones in this thread. Please don't take any offense or feel personally attacked - this is more of a general reply.

I think many people forget what Levy's job is all about. He is tasked with protecting the long-term interests of the club. So the idea of taking money that is available which we may not need might seem to be immoral but it's just part of his job. He will not have come to this decision on his own or without thinking things through. It is not a decision made out of some evil greed.

From the outside it may seem crazy - we have massive revenues so why are we making the staff at the bottom of the ladder accept an 80% wage? Well for a start we don't know the outlook for our expenses in terms of debt repayments. We also don't know how heavily our revenues are going to be hit because we don't know the duration of the lockdown or how life will look afterwards. And whilst the stance of players remains as it is (ie. full wages) we are obliged to pay them many millions over the next few months.

So by furloughing the non-playing staff we are able to increase the financial resilience of the club as far as possible. Many of those people are not currently doing any work anyway so why should they receive 100% pay, but more than that we are putting them in a position where they are not a burden on the club so sacking them will not be necessary - for now at least. Their jobs are now as protected as they can possibly be. And we will be levelling out (percentage wise) the guys who work in the shop earning minimum wage with the hundreds of levels of admin people.

I understand the concern about there being many more needy people than our staff but that simply isn't the duty of THFC. The duty of our board is to protect the club and by extension the people who work for the club, and in my opinion that is what this move does. If other clubs want to pay 100% wages that's cool, but they are going to run out of options before we do. And when those options run out it will be the staff who bear the brunt.

Anybody who runs a business will know that if you wait to change or seek help until the very moment you need it then you will find your efforts are too late. By setting ourselves up this way we are keeping as many options on the table for as long as possible. If things blow over quickly then we will have the option to make repayments or whatever... but if things take a long time we will be last to suffer.
Sense. Sense at last.
 

topper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
1,653
Sense. Sense at last.
I agree that it makes absolute sense financially - but that’s not the issue; it’s all the about the messaging and how badly this is and will play out reputationaly for the club. Absolute financial sense - absolute PR disaster!
 

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
6,094
Cross posting from another thread...
I think it's important to note that Spurs (uniquely) have reported a profit, and thus paid tax, in each of the last 7 years. In the last 2 years THFC have paid £44m in tax. This is more than every other PL club combined.
Now I'm not absolutely certain but I could say with great confidence that their accountants could have minimised that by a great deal more. In fact I'm pretty sure that they could have reported a loss every year...
This really needs to be taken into account before slating the club for furloughing staff and dipping into the pot to take what they are due and what they have put into in the first place.
 

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,778
I agree that it makes absolute sense financially - but that’s not the issue; it’s all the about the messaging and how badly this is and will play out reputationaly for the club. Absolute financial sense - absolute PR disaster!
Which is also being overblown. The people who are doing the most handwringing about this are our own fans who already dont like Levy and opposition fans who just like another bandwagon to jump on for the moment. There is a bit of fuss but its so intertwined with the current global situation and other clubs and businesses doing the same it all gets lumped into one, we are/will be a footnote at worst. Aviation is the big focus with Branson and the like getting the most heat. The announcement to be honest got in early so whoever takes it next will deflect or share the story further.

Football is already seen as money grabbing, morally bankrupt and pointless in the wider public, that's been the case for years so it hasn't really changed anything.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
29,220
I agree that it makes absolute sense financially - but that’s not the issue; it’s all the about the messaging and how badly this is and will play out reputationaly for the club. Absolute financial sense - absolute PR disaster!
People are more upset at the fact that this puts us in a bad light and can't take a bit of banter from their mates.
 

Drink!Drink!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
890
What we should learn from what has happened at Man City is that no matter how a club’s ownership behaves, there will always be a proportion of fans who will defend the owners. Or see criticism as unfair attacks on “us”...what about “them” over there.

Not at all surprised to see all the mental gymnastics on here to conclude “this is fine...all good”

personally, I am feeling that bit more alienated from the club
 

BringBack_leGin

Audere est facere
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
21,568
Any criticism of Spurs using the furlough is mental. The people going on furlough are quite literally redundant as there job doesn’t exist unless matches are being played. Guess what? Matches aren’t being played!

They’re getting 80% of their gross, which at any salary of £36000 or under (the point at which the furlough of 80% hits its maximum as nobody will be paid more than £2500 pm gross regardless of current salary) is actually around 85% of net, and the lower the original basic the higher that becomes of course. To get this figure, for however long it lasts, they’re not having to a) work or b) spend £100-£200 per month commuting (depending how far from Spurs they live). So the person on £30,000, on astandard opt in pension with an old style student loan, is down by £300 per month net before you take into account that he or she no longer spends anything on a commute, and sadly is unable to spend whatever they’d usually spend on non essentials in a month too (new clothes, toys for children, cinema, a dinner out or two, maybe even a Spurs match). Therefore, mr £30k (I’ve deliberately taken a salary below the London average but above the National average) is getting as close to having job security as is possible right now, is going to feel no, or limited if he lived extremely close, financial pinch, isn’t expected to perform in any role during a highly anxious time, and has more time to focus on his own personal life.

I’ve been put on furlough and it’s very much preferable to the alternative which is redundancy as a result of my company not currently having use of my skill set. It’s the best solution in a shit situation. My company has a much higher revenue that Spurs, lower operating costs and is also owned in large by a billionaire.

As for the player salaries, no club will act until they all do via an agreement involving the league and the PFA. To expect otherwise is daft.
 

Marty

See you next Tuesday
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
23,368
Any criticism of Spurs using the furlough is mental. The people going on furlough are quite literally redundant as there job doesn’t exist unless matches are being played. Guess what? Matches aren’t being played!

They’re getting 80% of their gross, which at any salary of £36000 or under (the point at which the furlough of 80% hits its maximum as nobody will be paid more than £2500 pm gross regardless of current salary) is actually around 85% of net, and the lower the original basic the higher that becomes of course. To get this figure, for however long it lasts, they’re not having to a) work or b) spend £100-£200 per month commuting (depending how far from Spurs they live). So the person on £30,000, on astandard opt in pension with an old style student loan, is down by £300 per month net before you take into account that he or she no longer spends anything on a commute, and sadly is unable to spend whatever they’d usually spend on non essentials in a month too (new clothes, toys for children, cinema, a dinner out or two, maybe even a Spurs match). Therefore, mr £30k (I’ve deliberately taken a salary below the London average but above the National average) is getting as close to having job security as is possible right now, is going to feel no, or limited if he lived extremely close, financial pinch, isn’t expected to perform in any role during a highly anxious time, and has more time to focus on his own personal life.

I’ve been put on furlough and it’s very much preferable to the alternative which is redundancy as a result of my company not currently having use of my skill set. It’s the best solution in a shit situation. My company has a much higher revenue that Spurs, lower operating costs and is also owned in large by a billionaire.

As for the player salaries, no club will act until they all do via an agreement involving the league and the PFA. To expect otherwise is daft.
I agree with you, but I think it's a shame from a purely PR point of view that the non-playing staff on ordinary wages are taking a cut before the playing staff that are earning quadrillions. It would make a lot more sense if it was all announced simultaneously after the meetings with the league and PFA.

I agree that it's massively overblown, but DL and the club had to expect that there would be a reaction to this and it's part of their job to manage that reaction. They have not done so.
 

BringBack_leGin

Audere est facere
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
21,568
I agree with you, but I think it's a shame from a purely PR point of view that the non-playing staff on ordinary wages are taking a cut before the playing staff that are earning quadrillions. It would make a lot more sense if it was all announced simultaneously after the meetings with the league and PFA.

I agree that it's massively overblown, but DL and the club had to expect that there would be a reaction to this and it's part of their job to manage that reaction. They have not done so.
You say managing the reaction is part of their job, I personally see no reason to justify a business decision to anybody other than those impacted by it. Levy has far more important things on his plate than placating the types who comment on the Sun articles.

As for doing it simultaneously with the player contracts, that would be ideal, but how long do you wait for players to agree to a cut before doing it? What if players never agree a cut? What if the decision had been made 10 days ago, but they’d delayed it as much as possible waiting for the players to take that cut, and couldn’t any longer? What if the decision was taken already, but not implemented until the end of the month so that at the very least the club could insure that each staff member would get a full March pay packet? Some businesses implemented the furlough mid March so that their employees would only get a full pay packet for half of March, and 80% of pay for the second half of March. Where’s the uproar about this in the media?

No, all this fuss isn’t because Spurs has done something wrong, it’s because people with an axe to grind will always find a way to grind that axe, even in the face of all reason and even in a time when that should be the furthest thing on their minds (not saying you by the way).
 
Last edited:

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,951
I agree with you, but I think it's a shame from a purely PR point of view that the non-playing staff on ordinary wages are taking a cut before the playing staff that are earning quadrillions. It would make a lot more sense if it was all announced simultaneously after the meetings with the league and PFA.

I agree that it's massively overblown, but DL and the club had to expect that there would be a reaction to this and it's part of their job to manage that reaction. They have not done so.
But surely we should appreciate it if are owners are acting in the best interests of the club even if they know it's going to be slated in the media? They are more concerned about saving jobs than saving face. Why should we give them grief for that?!

From my understanding, the club are not legally allowed to cut the player's salaries. That has to be a decision taken by the players themselves and the current advice to them is to do nothing for now. I'm confident that they will make a move eventually - even if it's just a few individuals - but that doesn't mean our owners should sit on their hands and expect the players to bail everything out.

Also consider this... if Harry Kane is earning 200k per week he is paying roughly 100k per week in income tax which is paying for the NHS and government bail out right now. If he was to take a pay cut that would mean that the income tax was also cut. So a better solution would be for him to choose to donate his money. He would pay 100k income tax, maybe 30k to support Spurs workers, 30k as a charitable donation which leaves 40k for him to look after his family and friends. But that choice is his choice alone.

My point is let's all stop flipping our lids about what we might deem as "immoral" or "mismanagement" because there are lots of ways to tackle the problems in the world right now and making snap judgements is not one of them.
 

Lifelong

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
105
I'm quoting this post but my point is aimed at the collection of your recent posts, and a number of other similar ones in this thread. Please don't take any offense or feel personally attacked - this is more of a general reply.

I think many people forget what Levy's job is all about. He is tasked with protecting the long-term interests of the club. So the idea of taking money that is available which we may not need might seem to be immoral but it's just part of his job. He will not have come to this decision on his own or without thinking things through. It is not a decision made out of some evil greed.

From the outside it may seem crazy - we have massive revenues so why are we making the staff at the bottom of the ladder accept an 80% wage? Well for a start we don't know the outlook for our expenses in terms of debt repayments. We also don't know how heavily our revenues are going to be hit because we don't know the duration of the lockdown or how life will look afterwards. And whilst the stance of players remains as it is (ie. full wages) we are obliged to pay them many millions over the next few months.

So by furloughing the non-playing staff we are able to increase the financial resilience of the club as far as possible. Many of those people are not currently doing any work anyway so why should they receive 100% pay, but more than that we are putting them in a position where they are not a burden on the club so sacking them will not be necessary - for now at least. Their jobs are now as protected as they can possibly be. And we will be levelling out (percentage wise) the guys who work in the shop earning minimum wage with the hundreds of levels of admin people.

I understand the concern about there being many more needy people than our staff but that simply isn't the duty of THFC. The duty of our board is to protect the club and by extension the people who work for the club, and in my opinion that is what this move does. If other clubs want to pay 100% wages that's cool, but they are going to run out of options before we do. And when those options run out it will be the staff who bear the brunt.

Anybody who runs a business will know that if you wait to change or seek help until the very moment you need it then you will find your efforts are too late. By setting ourselves up this way we are keeping as many options on the table for as long as possible. If things blow over quickly then we will have the option to make repayments or whatever... but if things take a long time we will be last to suffer.
Shame I could only ‘winner’ this once...
 

SpunkyBackpack

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
7,778
I agree with you, but I think it's a shame from a purely PR point of view that the non-playing staff on ordinary wages are taking a cut before the playing staff that are earning quadrillions. It would make a lot more sense if it was all announced simultaneously after the meetings with the league and PFA.

I agree that it's massively overblown, but DL and the club had to expect that there would be a reaction to this and it's part of their job to manage that reaction. They have not done so.
A publicly traded company cannot withhold announcements that could have an impact on its share price, there would be fines and arrests if they did that so once it had been decided and actioned it had to be announced, legally. That press release will have gone to the stock exchange as a specific kind of announcement, the name of which escapes me right now.

The world of finance and football are grubby and unkind places but we are in that world and we have to abide by the rules and regulations of that world. The PFA dragging their feet is shit, we have to abide by it, the lower paid workers getting hit first is shit, welcome to capitalism but we have to follow the rules, Levy putting shareholders first is shitty but that is literally his job. It would be lovely to think that football is still like a sunday league team where we all much in and sell pies and but it isn't, its a business and its 2020.

I was made redundant last month and the day of it i was corralled into an aircraft hanger where an administrator told a few hundred people, some of whom were in tears still, that her responsibility now was to maximise returns for shareholders before we get money we feel owed to pay our mortgages and feed our kids. Flat out told us that her priority was to ensure that Richard Branson gets his cash back before us. But that is her job, those are the rules and as shitty as it is thats not her fault.
 

Hakkz

Svensk hetsporre
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
6,384
I agree that it makes absolute sense financially - but that’s not the issue; it’s all the about the messaging and how badly this is and will play out reputationaly for the club. Absolute financial sense - absolute PR disaster!
In the end, no one is going to give a shit about this.
 
Top