What's new

ENIC...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
It will be too late by then. Damage has been done.

Even West fucking Ham are paying their staff in full.

So it is 3 clubs, Newcastle, Bouremouth and us.
Difference is at least Newcastle and Bournemouth are paying the staff in full still, by topping up the non-playing staff so they don't lose out, and Bournemouth team management have already taken a "significant" salary drop.
We are out on a limb here as being morally wrong, the others to a lesser degree.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
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.

Disagree.

Do you really think the other option to make redundant the whole scouting network, recruitment team, office staff etc, and then in few months have to start from scratch again and recruit whole new teams, with all that entails, and all the knowledge gone ?

Not a chance, they have just seen a way to reduce their overheads, and keep their fully trained staff available to them without having to pay a penny for them.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Disagree.

Do you really think the other option to make redundant the whole scouting network, recruitment team, office staff etc, and then in few months have to start from scratch again and recruit whole new teams, with all that entails ?

Not a chance, they have just seen a way to reduce their overheads, and keep their fully trained staff on the books so they can use again in future when the time comes, it is not a case of saving redundancies.
Seeing as you have been updated directly by the Spurs board on this, I bow to your greater knowledge :notworthy:

If cash flow, the most important thing in any company, becomes an issue, then people at the bottom of the chain get made redundant where there is no work to any longer justify their employment. This will now not happen at Spurs.
 

the yid

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
2,559
11,473
Now they're saying we aint spending in summer.... no point voiding the season. The next ones gonna be just as bad
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Seeing as you have been updated directly by the Spurs board on this, I bow to your greater knowledge :notworthy:

If cash flow, the most important thing in any company, becomes an issue, then people at the bottom of the chain get made redundant where there is no work to any longer justify their employment. This will now not happen at Spurs.

Disagree again, and I was a FInance DIrector of a company that turned over in less than 2 weeks, what Tottenham do in a year.
In a case where cashflow is an issue, you don't just rip up your whole back office and operations staff, you start by eliminating the higher earners that aren't contributing first and foremost, as this has the biggest effect.

Those 550 staff that we have basically removed, and are not paying a penny more for is the same effect of removing (or significantly reducing the salary of maybe 2 or 3 of our higher earners).
We are rightly getting pelted by all corners, including the Government, for this morally bankrupt situation the club have invoked.
 
Last edited:

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2005
6,326
15,561
Anyone know which/how many staff have been furloughed and which have just taken a 20% cut?
Players are slightly different to staff as they have an intangible value as well as a salary. You don't/can't just layoff players in such a situation.
 

Nebby

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2013
3,363
6,377
I would disagree, players are keeping fit, which they would be expected do all 365 days a year anyway.
They are not training

They are undertaking various activities at home as directed by their employer, so still working.
 

Nebby

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2013
3,363
6,377
Disagree again, and I was a FInance DIrector of a company that turned over in less than 2 weeks, what Tottenham do in a year.
In a case where cashflow is an issue, you don't just rip up your whole back office and operations staff, you start by eliminating the higher earners that aren't contributing first and foremost, as this has the biggest effect.

Those 550 staff that we have basically removed, and are not paying a penny more is the same effect of removing (or significantly reducing the salary of maybe 2 or 3 of our higher earners).
We are rightly getting pelted by all corners, including the Government, for this morally bankrupt situation the club have invoked.

Nothing "morally bankrupt" about it at all. Sounds like more ENIC / DL bashing.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Nothing "morally bankrupt" about it at all. Sounds like more ENIC / DL bashing.

So us being the only club to have done this in the League because all the others feel it Is the right moral thing to do to ensure your lower paid staff do not suffer hardship, whilst numerous others in the same business continue to earn millions, doesn't suggest to you, we have got this totally wrong then ?
 
Last edited:

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,548
45,031
Disagree again, and I was a FInance DIrector of a company that turned over in less than 2 weeks, what Tottenham do in a year.
In a case where cashflow is an issue, you don't just rip up your whole back office and operations staff, you start by eliminating the higher earners that aren't contributing first and foremost, as this has the biggest effect.

Those 550 staff that we have basically removed, and are not paying a penny more is the same effect of removing (or significantly reducing the salary of maybe 2 or 3 of our higher earners).
We are rightly getting pelted by all corners, including the Government, for this morally bankrupt situation the club have invoked.

My question would be why is it morally bankrupt for a football club to do this, but not any other business?

You’ve already pointed out that football clubs are actually small fry when it comes to turnover and especially profits etc, they are certainly not big money businesses awash with cash. They’re also incredibly vulnerable in terms of cash generation and general cash flow, being generally reliant entirely on processes which are almost completely out of their control to generate all income.

They’re actually one of the most at risk business types in existence, having zero income generation ability during an event like this and being tied into extremely high percentage outgoings in terms of salaries - far higher as a proportion of their turnover than most other industries.

Given those circumstances, I see nothing morally bankrupt about a football club using a deliberately designed government scheme to protect itself and it’s staff for a limited period of time - especially when that football club has paid more tax to the exchequer than all other Premier League clubs combined over the last two years.

I’ve maintained since the start that all clubs will eventually do this, we were just one of the first.

And we all know that the player wages issues is entirely separate and not in the sole power of the club to influence.

It’s bullshit drama directed at an easy target from the media, and misplaced faux-outrage from fans who are unable to take a step back and look at the situation objectively because they’re too emotionally close to the subject matter (both our fans who want to be proud of the club, and opposition fans who want any excuse for a pile on).
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
Disagree again, and I was a FInance DIrector of a company that turned over in less than 2 weeks, what Tottenham do in a year.
In a case where cashflow is an issue, you don't just rip up your whole back office and operations staff, you start by eliminating the higher earners that aren't contributing first and foremost, as this has the biggest effect.

Those 550 staff that we have basically removed, and are not paying a penny more is the same effect of removing (or significantly reducing the salary of maybe 2 or 3 of our higher earners).
We are rightly getting pelted by all corners, including the Government, for this morally bankrupt situation the club have invoked.
Did your circa £10-15bn turnover business ever encounter a worldwide pandemic which resulted in it ceasing operations almost completely, losing out on almost every revenue stream available?

As for removing the salary of 2/3 high earners, as an accomplished FD of one of the worlds largest business, surely you can appreciate that you’d have to treat them all equally (and in line with the rest of their profession, and that you also just can’t cancel those contracts, those high earners will be expecting a significant pay off to end those contracts, defeating the purpose of ceasing paying them in the first place.

The furloughing of staff (and it’s not 550 furloughs, it’s furloughs where appropriate and 20% of pay cuts for all 550 non playing staff including himself) is a very separate issue to the reducing of players salary. The former is facilitated by a government mechanism. The latter can only happen by collective agreement.
 

BringBack_leGin

Well-Known Member
Jul 28, 2004
27,719
54,929
My question would be why is it morally bankrupt for a football club to do this, but not any other business?

You’ve already pointed out that football clubs are actually small fry when it comes to turnover and especially profits etc, they are certainly not big money businesses awash with cash. They’re also incredibly vulnerable in terms of cash generation and general cash flow, being generally reliant entirely on processes which are almost completely out of their control to generate all income.

They’re actually one of the most at risk business types in existence, having zero income generation ability during an event like this and being tied into extremely high percentage outgoings in terms of salaries - far higher as a proportion of their turnover than most other industries.

Given those circumstances, I see nothing morally bankrupt about a football club using a deliberately designed government scheme to protect itself and it’s staff for a limited period of time - especially when that football club has paid more tax to the exchequer than all other Premier League clubs combined over the last two years.

I’ve maintained since the start that all clubs will eventually do this, we were just one of the first.

And we all know that the player wages issues is entirely separate and not in the sole power of the club to influence.
Articulated far better than I have.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
My question would be why is it morally bankrupt for a football club to do this, but not any other business?

You’ve already pointed out that football clubs are actually small fry when it comes to turnover and especially profits etc, they are certainly not big money businesses awash with cash. They’re also incredibly vulnerable in terms of cash generation and general cash flow, being generally reliant entirely on processes which are almost completely out of their control to generate all income.

They’re actually one of the most at risk business types in existence, having zero income generation ability during an event like this and being tied into extremely high percentage outgoings in terms of salaries - far higher as a proportion of their turnover than most other industries.

Given those circumstances, I see nothing morally bankrupt about a football club using a deliberately designed government scheme to protect itself and it’s staff for a limited period of time - especially when that football club has paid more tax to the exchequer than all other Premier League clubs combined over the last two years.

I’ve maintained since the start that all clubs will eventually do this, we were just one of the first.

And we all know that the player wages issues is entirely separate and not in the sole power of the club to influence.

It’s bullshit drama directed at an easy target from the media, and misplaced faux-outrage from fans who are unable to take a step back and look at the situation objectively because they’re too emotionally close to the subject matter (both our fans who want to be proud of the club, and opposition fans who want any excuse for a pile on).


Because in this situation a football club needs to decide if it is operational or not.
You cannot lay off all your operational staff and keep paying the players. We either have an operation or we don't, and that decision needs to be taken at the same time.

What we have basically done in respect of entertainment business is continue to keep paying all the actors, but laid off all of the cameramen and scriptwriters. All need to be treated the same.
 

Trees

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
1,534
4,203
My question would be why is it morally bankrupt for a football club to do this, but not any other business?

You’ve already pointed out that football clubs are actually small fry when it comes to turnover and especially profits etc, they are certainly not big money businesses awash with cash. They’re also incredibly vulnerable in terms of cash generation and general cash flow, being generally reliant entirely on processes which are almost completely out of their control to generate all income.

They’re actually one of the most at risk business types in existence, having zero income generation ability during an event like this and being tied into extremely high percentage outgoings in terms of salaries - far higher as a proportion of their turnover than most other industries.

Given those circumstances, I see nothing morally bankrupt about a football club using a deliberately designed government scheme to protect itself and it’s staff for a limited period of time - especially when that football club has paid more tax to the exchequer than all other Premier League clubs combined over the last two years.

I’ve maintained since the start that all clubs will eventually do this, we were just one of the first.

And we all know that the player wages issues is entirely separate and not in the sole power of the club to influence.

It’s bullshit drama directed at an easy target from the media, and misplaced faux-outrage from fans who are unable to take a step back and look at the situation objectively because they’re too emotionally close to the subject matter (both our fans who want to be proud of the club, and opposition fans who want any excuse for a pile on).
Sometimes there is a question of what is morally right. How u lead your life / business. I own a small company and we are moving heaven earth to look after our employees and subbies. Why can we do it and yet Spurs show such ill regard for people and indeed the country?
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,548
45,031
Sometimes there is a question of what is morally right. How u lead your life / business. I own a small company and we are moving heaven earth to look after our employees and subbies. Why can we do it and yet Spurs show such ill regard for people and indeed the country?

Spurs have also moved to look after their employees. What’s the difference?
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,548
45,031
Because in this situation a football club needs to decide if it is operational or not.
You cannot lay off all your operational staff and keep paying the players. We either have an operation or we don't, and that decision needs to be taken at the same time.

What we have basically done in respect of entertainment business is continue to keep paying all the actors, but laid off all of the cameramen and scriptwriters. All need to be treated the same.

I mean you absolutely can furlough (we haven’t laid anyone off) the operational staff and keep paying the players. We literally have done just that.

We (and anyone else) can do this because the contractual arrangements between the club and the players are entirely different to the arrangements between the club and the rest of its staff.
 

Trees

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
1,534
4,203
Spurs have also moved to look after their employees. What’s the difference?
The difference is a) they could make up the furlough shortfall. B) announce it after the players are sorted. C) look at Directors pay.

I’m a capitalist and know that Corbynomics would bankrupt the country. But in what world is it justifiable for a chairman of our club to be paid an average of £60k a week over the last ten years ?
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
I mean you absolutely can furlough (we haven’t laid anyone off) the operational staff and keep paying the players. We literally have done just that.

We (and anyone else) can do this because the contractual arrangements between the club and the players are entirely different to the arrangements between the club and the rest of its staff.

I know we absolutely can do what we have done, it is totally legal.
However it is not moral, and that is why no other club has done this (all others that have furloughed staff are paying them full salary still)
Either we have an operation, or we don't, if we do all staff should receive their full money, if we don't all should be furloughed, but then there is the issue which the industry has got themselves in to, of fixed term contracts, and players having an asset value.
 

pelayo59

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2019
1,035
4,588
Disagree.

Do you really think the other option to make redundant the whole scouting network, recruitment team, office staff etc, and then in few months have to start from scratch again and recruit whole new teams, with all that entails, and all the knowledge gone ?

Not a chance, they have just seen a way to reduce their overheads, and keep their fully trained staff available to them without having to pay a penny for them.

Do you really think that our recruitment team hadn't already identified our summer targets or our scouts who now will whole day stay at home won't spend their time watching some players at Wyscout etc?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top