ENIC...

Lighty64

PC huh what a joke, avatar changed
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
9,667
There's also no guarantee that should ENIC want to bank roll wages at a time where we're losing money hand over fist, that that would be ok with FFP.

*please don't shoot me, I really don't want a debate about whether or not ENIC would ever countenance doing that. I'm more interested in the conversation of how it would work with FFP as it stands.
not debating, but heard UEFA intend to not punish anyone that falls foul of FFP for the next 2 seasons, and still stated that Man C's ban would still stand

apologies as I don't remember where I heard or read it
 

Lighty64

PC huh what a joke, avatar changed
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
9,667
This is simply a moral argument, so there is little to be gained from people continually spouting how it makes great business sense. At the end of the day, we all have different views on morality and ethics and as has been shown many many times, some people will do ANYTHING to make/save money.
if you knew this might cost us 150m don't you think saving another 3m should be thought about?

how do we know that the banks didn't advise Levy to do this? they decide how much transfer money we can use if we owe money, and the fact we owe 635m at the moment and are looking like taking a 150m hit, then just possible Levy was advised to take action
 

Lighty64

PC huh what a joke, avatar changed
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
9,667
It will be too late by then. Damage has been done.

Even West fucking Ham are paying their staff in full.
you do know West Ham most probably don't even have 50 non-playing staff, those involved in working the stadium are paid by the council
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,951
You are asking “if” 20% pay cut will have an impact on the the lowest paid employees. Sigh, really?
Why do you find that hard to comprehend? Those workers - like the majority of us - will have cut their outgoings by more than 20% I imagine. Like most of us they are eligible for breaks on mortgage/rent payments, council tax and utility bills as I mentioned in my post.

For many workers across the country one of their largest bills is commuting. Another big outlay for many of us is socialising. Both things are out of the equation currently.

If I’m so far from the mark it should be very easy for you to give me an example of somebody who is now on the bleeding edge because they are receiving 80% pay. wouldn’t it be better to supply that rather than press an icon on a forum?

What I’m driving at is that this move isn’t going to be a huge disadvantage to the people affected, and that with the fullness of time we may see that the club moving early is more beneficial to these people in the long run.

If we were in the “normal” world I would completely agree that a 20% cut to the lowest paid is unacceptable. But we aren’t anywhere near normal right now.

The worst case scenario from a PR standpoint (although why does anyone care about PR right now) is that the whole thing blows over quickly and Spurs look like money-grabbing bastards who blinked at the first sign of danger. And I hope that scenario comes true, because it means the virus impact has past.

But an alternate scenario is that Everton’s staff (for example) are paid full whack until June, then the league is cancelled, all of Everton’s staff are laid off whilst our staff are still being paid 80%. How is that bad?

The simple fact is nobody knows how bad the virus is gonna be and how it will impact football. Nobody. Why not play the “safe” route?
 

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
6,106
you do know West Ham most probably don't even have 50 non-playing staff, those involved in working the stadium are paid by the council
And of those 50 how many are called Gold / Sullivan / Brady ? Or have relatives named as such?
 

PeeEyeEmPee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
1,413
Why do you find that hard to comprehend? Those workers - like the majority of us - will have cut their outgoings by more than 20% I imagine. Like most of us they are eligible for breaks on mortgage/rent payments, council tax and utility bills as I mentioned in my post.

For many workers across the country one of their largest bills is commuting. Another big outlay for many of us is socialising. Both things are out of the equation currently.

If I’m so far from the mark it should be very easy for you to give me an example of somebody who is now on the bleeding edge because they are receiving 80% pay. wouldn’t it be better to supply that rather than press an icon on a forum?

What I’m driving at is that this move isn’t going to be a huge disadvantage to the people affected, and that with the fullness of time we may see that the club moving early is more beneficial to these people in the long run.

If we were in the “normal” world I would completely agree that a 20% cut to the lowest paid is unacceptable. But we aren’t anywhere near normal right now.

The worst case scenario from a PR standpoint (although why does anyone care about PR right now) is that the whole thing blows over quickly and Spurs look like money-grabbing bastards who blinked at the first sign of danger. And I hope that scenario comes true, because it means the virus impact has past.

But an alternate scenario is that Everton’s staff (for example) are paid full whack until June, then the league is cancelled, all of Everton’s staff are laid off whilst our staff are still being paid 80%. How is that bad?

The simple fact is nobody knows how bad the virus is gonna be and how it will impact football. Nobody. Why not play the “safe” route?
You DO realise that these bills don't just get cancelled, right? They will still have to be paid at some point by people who will now be paid 20% less.
 

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
6,837
There is a great deal of vitriol towards people who earn well in life, it isnt just football but seems that those who dont earn much want those who earn vasts amounts of money to contribute more.

I really dont agree with this and I have no qualms if rich folk dont want to contribute more than what others contribute. Theyve earnt it so good on em.

Matt Hancock going on air and suggesting that PL footballers should all of a sudden contribute more is rubbish in my view. Firstly no one knows how much they contribute out of their pockets and secondly it is not anyones place to say what they can and cannot contribute including taking pay cuts etc.

Im not rich by any means and I contribute significant amounts of money to charities on an annual basis so if someone was to all of a sudden suggest I should contribute more or whatever then id tell them where to go.
 

Jamturk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
5,999
Why do you find that hard to comprehend? Those workers - like the majority of us - will have cut their outgoings by more than 20% I imagine. Like most of us they are eligible for breaks on mortgage/rent payments, council tax and utility bills as I mentioned in my post.

For many workers across the country one of their largest bills is commuting. Another big outlay for many of us is socialising. Both things are out of the equation currently.

If I’m so far from the mark it should be very easy for you to give me an example of somebody who is now on the bleeding edge because they are receiving 80% pay. wouldn’t it be better to supply that rather than press an icon on a forum?

What I’m driving at is that this move isn’t going to be a huge disadvantage to the people affected, and that with the fullness of time we may see that the club moving early is more beneficial to these people in the long run.

If we were in the “normal” world I would completely agree that a 20% cut to the lowest paid is unacceptable. But we aren’t anywhere near normal right now.

The worst case scenario from a PR standpoint (although why does anyone care about PR right now) is that the whole thing blows over quickly and Spurs look like money-grabbing bastards who blinked at the first sign of danger. And I hope that scenario comes true, because it means the virus impact has past.

But an alternate scenario is that Everton’s staff (for example) are paid full whack until June, then the league is cancelled, all of Everton’s staff are laid off whilst our staff are still being paid 80%. How is that bad?

The simple fact is nobody knows how bad the virus is gonna be and how it will impact football. Nobody. Why not play the “safe” route?
This is what really sticks in my craw about capitalism.

Privatise the profits socialise the losses.

When everything is hunky dory we don't here a peep from these ****s but as soon as the shit hits the fan they all come with their begging bowls.

Hypocrites the lot of them.
 

BringBack_leGin

Audere est facere
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
21,573
Why do you find that hard to comprehend? Those workers - like the majority of us - will have cut their outgoings by more than 20% I imagine. Like most of us they are eligible for breaks on mortgage/rent payments, council tax and utility bills as I mentioned in my post.

For many workers across the country one of their largest bills is commuting. Another big outlay for many of us is socialising. Both things are out of the equation currently.

If I’m so far from the mark it should be very easy for you to give me an example of somebody who is now on the bleeding edge because they are receiving 80% pay. wouldn’t it be better to supply that rather than press an icon on a forum?

What I’m driving at is that this move isn’t going to be a huge disadvantage to the people affected, and that with the fullness of time we may see that the club moving early is more beneficial to these people in the long run.

If we were in the “normal” world I would completely agree that a 20% cut to the lowest paid is unacceptable. But we aren’t anywhere near normal right now.

The worst case scenario from a PR standpoint (although why does anyone care about PR right now) is that the whole thing blows over quickly and Spurs look like money-grabbing bastards who blinked at the first sign of danger. And I hope that scenario comes true, because it means the virus impact has past.

But an alternate scenario is that Everton’s staff (for example) are paid full whack until June, then the league is cancelled, all of Everton’s staff are laid off whilst our staff are still being paid 80%. How is that bad?

The simple fact is nobody knows how bad the virus is gonna be and how it will impact football. Nobody. Why not play the “safe” route?
Well said.

Mr Jones on £20k, auto enrolment pension but no student loan, will lose about £200pm net. Unless Mr Jones is a recluse who walked to work, never went for a beer, never ate out, never bought anyone a gift, had no interest in the cinema or bowling, and had no family or friends to visit (or if he did, they all live round the corner) in his pre lockdown life, then that £200 each month he’s not getting will likely be barely noticed, if at all.

Commuting for me costs £200 per month and that’s assuming all my work is on site. I am not a high earner. I have been furloughed and so far this week since payday I’ve spent the square root of squat.
 
Last edited:

purple8

Active Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
104
Well said.

Mr Jones on £20k, auto enrolment pension but no student loan, will lose about £200pm net. Unless Mr Jones is a recluse who walked to work, never went for a beer, never ate out, never bought anyone a gift, had no interest in the cinema or bowling, and had no family or friends to visit (or if he did, they all live round the corner) in his pre lockdown life, then that £200 each month he’s not getting will likely be barely noticed, if at all.

Commuting for me costs £200 per month and that’s assuming all my work is on site, and I am not a high earner.
OMG you just described me..
 

WiganSpur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
12,088
There is a great deal of vitriol towards people who earn well in life, it isnt just football but seems that those who dont earn much want those who earn vasts amounts of money to contribute more.

I really dont agree with this and I have no qualms if rich folk dont want to contribute more than what others contribute. Theyve earnt it so good on em.

Matt Hancock going on air and suggesting that PL footballers should all of a sudden contribute more is rubbish in my view. Firstly no one knows how much they contribute out of their pockets and secondly it is not anyones place to say what they can and cannot contribute including taking pay cuts etc.

Im not rich by any means and I contribute significant amounts of money to charities on an annual basis so if someone was to all of a sudden suggest I should contribute more or whatever then id tell them where to go.
For this reason I don't necessarily blame the players. They should be charitable but at the end of the day it's their money and shouldn't be pressured by a situation that is the club's responsibility to deal with. The club were the ones that offered the players these contracts.

It really is simple. Levy should have offered full pay for say 3 months and review the situation down the line as things come clearer. That would have been the sensible and fair thing to do. Show you really care about the local people without constantly wanting to profit from them.

I feel like all Levy sees is 700k saved or whatever it is without any appreciation for the other consequences of his actions. It's not a good look for the club and I totally understand why we're being condemned for it because at this point it's a shitty thing to do for a number of reasons.
 
Last edited:

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Messages
2,951
You DO realise that these bills don't just get cancelled, right? They will still have to be paid at some point by people who will now be paid 20% less.
Of course I do. That's why I used the word "breaks" because that's what they are. I'm taking those options myself and am aware of how they are set to work... the mortgage and council tax side at least.

What the system is geared up to do is to allow people time to adjust to their new reality. Gary the Spurs Lodge chef is not getting 3 months for free but he is getting 3 months to save up his 80% pay packet and be as financially prepared as he can come July. And when July comes he gets to spread the money he hasn't paid off his mortgage across the lifetime of his mortgage (assuming he has one). It's a pretty sweet deal.

During those 3 months Gary does not have to pay to travel to work. He doesn't even have to work. He doesn't have to spend much money at all. If he chooses to spend his 80% pay on Amazon stuff that's his choice. But if he chooses to save his 80% pay he will be set well come the Summer. And this is key - people are being given a chance to sort themselves out.

The backdrop is that the club has lots of money so it seems ridiculous to be putting these workers onto the gov scheme. But the club only has lots of money because it has massive revenues. If those revenues are slashed then we no longer have lots of money... not over the long term anyway.

This really isn't a complicated situation. 80% pay is better than 0% pay. And actually 80% on 30% outgoings is far better than 100% pay on 100% outgoings. What is most important of all is certainty, and that is what these staff have. Their jobs are as secure as they can possibly be and they know how much money is coming in the door.

We really don't know how this will play out so let's just relax and take care of ourselves and our neighbours. Let's at least get to the end of next week and see where things stand in terms of the general lockdown and then the world of football. My guess is that further football delays will be announced this weekend and that will be enough of a spur for the players to make a blanket donation next week which will resolve much of this.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
24,782
It's also worth noting that a lot of our stadium debt was paid off by using upfront sponsorship payments. We're no longer playing matches so the sponsors aren't receiving the service they've paid for. If they suddenly demand some of that money back then we could be in big trouble.
 

Drink!Drink!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2014
Messages
890
Well said.

Mr Jones on £20k, auto enrolment pension but no student loan, will lose about £200pm net. Unless Mr Jones is a recluse who walked to work, never went for a beer, never ate out, never bought anyone a gift, had no interest in the cinema or bowling, and had no family or friends to visit (or if he did, they all live round the corner) in his pre lockdown life, then that £200 each month he’s not getting will likely be barely noticed, if at all.

Commuting for me costs £200 per month and that’s assuming all my work is on site. I am not a high earner. I have been furloughed and so far this week since payday I’ve spent the square root of squat.
take a step back and listen to yourself. Making these pronouncements on the simple needs of the lower orders. You sound like some Victorian mill owner.
 

BringBack_leGin

Audere est facere
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
21,573
take a step back and listen to yourself. Making these pronouncements on the simple needs of the lower orders. You sound like some Victorian mill owner.
No, I’m someone on an income below national average, with a wife on just a primary school teacher salary, and have been furloughed by my large corporate employer with a billionaire owner, yet am still managing to still pay his bills and the mortgage without need for a mortgage holiday. I’m not saying nobody will be inconvenienced, only that the grand majority should not be that significantly impacted given all the money they are not spending right now.

Look at you making assumptions about my position in life 😉
 
Last edited:

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2008
Messages
588
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.
Your “guess what”, “we aren’t playing matches right now” argument falls down when you are still paying the ACTUAL players full wages.

Don’t tell me.... but they are all still ‘training’ at home? That’s BS, they should have their pay reduced also, if that is the business stance.

Arguments about this will run back and forth, but I know for sure the club will be massively regretting their decision and press release.

The negative PR and social media backlash is nowhere near worth the few million this will potentially save in wages.

We spend millions in advertising and PR, and this has been a disaster on that front. Whether it was deserved or not.
 

MK Yid

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
1,023
Grandstanding bollocks by an MP... what a surprise. Players continue to train, which is part and parcel of their employment, so they cannot be furloughed according to the Government's own rules.

I would disagree, players are keeping fit, which they would be expected do all 365 days a year anyway.
They are not training
 

BringBack_leGin

Audere est facere
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
21,573
Your “guess what”, “we aren’t playing matches right now” argument falls down when you are still paying the ACTUAL players full wages.

Don’t tell me.... but they are all still ‘training’ at home? That’s BS, they should have their pay reduced also, if that is the business stance.

Arguments about this will run back and forth, but I know for sure the club will be massively regretting their decision and press release.

The negative PR and social media backlash is nowhere near worth the few million this will potentially save in wages.

We spend millions in advertising and PR, and this has been a disaster on that front. Whether it was deserved or not.
The furlough scheme is there to mitigate against redundancies, which is how it’s being used.

In terms of the players, the club literally cannot furlough a player from £5-10m per year down to £30k per year (the furlough maximum) until there is a unilateral agreement between players union, league, clubs and potentially government. The furlough has been implemented because there is a legal means by which to do it. Player salary cuts has not because there isn’t. Anybody making out that they don’t understand this simple concept is being deliberately obtuse.

Person being moved from £30k to £24k or £25k to £20k or even £20k to £16k is a net difference if £200-£300 per month each time, with living expenses massively reduced in that time too and if necessary, mortgage holidays and rent reliefs etc. Furloughing any footballer in the top flight wouldn’t be putting them on 80% of salary, it would be putting them on less than 1% of salary. It can’t be done without an agreement in place at the top level, otherwise when all this is done every player will sue their way out of their contract and go to whoever they want for free.

The reverse-elitism in this thread is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Top