What's new

ENIC...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
Has Peter Moore taken a 20% cut in salary?

Well I hope he hasn't, as all that would mean is more money staying in the club, and less money going to the NHS (via government taxes, PAYE, ers NI and ee's NI).
The only people that benefit from salary cuts of all staff are the shareholders with the individuals and the wider public all losing out.
 

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2005
6,326
15,561
Really bemused by what you are disagreeing with @MK Yid from the horses mouth...
Daniel Levy said:
...we ourselves made the difficult decision – in order to protect jobs – to reduce the remuneration of all 550 non-playing directors and employees for April and May by 20% utilising, where appropriate, the Government’s furlough scheme.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
Two best managed clubs did this. Half of the clubs will do the same sooner than later, especially when reports coming that talks between clubs and players haven't gone well

And there's generally a big clue as to why they are the best financially managed clubs because they make decisions like this. This goes far beyond what Mick from Facebook thinks what should be done or how fans think football clubs should behave. Maybe the Coronavirus pandemic and lack off football will fuck up a lot of clubs more than what we actually want to believe.
 

coys200

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2017
8,436
17,403
Tbh anyone at home with a mortgage on 80% is probably better off than they were before. With mortgage holidays, no travel, subscriptions reduced pubs shut its pretty hard to spend 50% of previous wage let alone 80% unless you’re sitting on Amazon all day.
 

mickdale

Well-Known Member
Apr 5, 2016
1,069
1,409
any truth in the opinion that the reason clubs haven't reduced players wages is normally theres a clause in players contracts that if basic pay is reduced the players can leave on a free transfer at the end of the season?
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,548
45,031
any truth in the opinion that the reason clubs haven't reduced players wages is normally theres a clause in players contracts that if basic pay is reduced the players can leave on a free transfer at the end of the season?

Most player contracts are written in such a way as any change to or withholding of payment by the club, outside of agreed disciplinary reasons, would constitute a breach of contract and leaves the club vulnerable to legal proceedings from the player and agent.
 

Trees

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
1,534
4,203
Most player contracts are written in such a way as any change to or withholding of payment by the club, outside of agreed disciplinary reasons, would constitute a breach of contract and leaves the club vulnerable to legal proceedings from the player and agent.
Therefore if certain players individually hold out, then there is nothing a club can do ?
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,548
45,031
Therefore if certain players individually hold out, then there is nothing a club can do ?

In theory. Obviously each player's contract is different but generally the clauses and obligations are all the same.

It's the whole reason the clubs haven't ever been able to arbitrarily reduce the wages of their players, but need the PFA and PL to come together to agree something. And to be fair to the players, as some of them are starting to say, simply cutting their wages does nothing but put money into the pockets of the owners.

The two key elements to the whole matter are assuring the survival of the jobs of people who work for football clubs, and assuring the survival of the clubs themselves. Then further down the football pyramid, assuring the survival of those players who aren't getting thousands of pounds a week.

It's a lot more complex than the media in general are letting on, more complicated than many people in this thread seem to think, and certainly more complicated than Barry on Twitter who has been slating Levy and calling all the players greedy ****s for the past week understands.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
It's a lot more complex than the media in general are letting on, more complicated than many people in this thread seem to think, and certainly more complicated than Barry on Twitter who has been slating Levy and calling all the players greedy ****s for the past week understands.
Exactly this. I think that a lot of the criticism from fans comes as a symptom of only viewing things to a certain degree. A lot of the complexity and "big picture" stuff gets ignored because it's just easier that way.

This is only made worse by extent of the media coverage. For example, you have Carragher criticising LFC for furloughing and saying that player's should be doing more. He had a fairly lucrative football career and I'm sure his Sky wages are decent too, so where's his contribution? Few seem to question that because it's just easier to jump on the bandwagon.

I would imagine that the player's money is far more liquid than the club's money so they really hold the key to unlocking the financial potential of football. But I can understand why they have been reluctant/unable to come to an agreement so far. There are lots of things to consider and they do need to look after their own families before extending their reach to their own clubs then the country as a whole. And it makes sense that they would want to control what is happening with their money.

It was encouraging to hear Danny Rose revealing that the club captains are already talking about options. What is discouraging (and continues to be) are "fans" with zero knowledge being so vocally critical because it will only make the players feel less obliged to help.
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,356
3,330
I really don’t understand your working out.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but in case it's the latter I can clarify.

"80% pay is better than 0% pay".
Hopefully this one is pretty clear!

For certain employees - like a physio for example - the club will benefit by making sure their job still exists so they don't have to re-hire when the time comes. But for others - like club shop staff, cleaners or bar staff - it would be very easy to sack them and re-hire. If the club shop is not open there is no need for those employees so they could be let go.

By moving those employees onto the gov scheme it completely removes their financial burden from the club which means that the club will have no reason to sack them. They certainly don't represent the biggest financial burden to the club but are probably the one we can most control, so the risk to their jobs and them having 0% pay is off the table.

"And actually 80% on 30% outgoings is far better than 100% pay on 100% outgoings"
Maybe a bit more complicated?

Basically if your incomings go down by 20% but your outgoings go down by 70% (or anything above 20%) you are going to end up better off financially speaking. The guy earning 20k now earns 16k but if they aren't spending 2k on petrol, 1k on a family holiday and 1k down the pub (pro rata) they are in the same relative position. And that's before all the smaller expenses; gym membership, birthday parties, weekend trips are removed. They probably take a relative hit on NI contributions but a relative bump on income tax given the thresholds.

I'm sure many people would prefer to have their full pay and go to work as normal, but considering most people will see their financial outgoings hugely reduced at the moment, plus the mortgage/utilities/council tax flexibility, people on 80% pay are (on the whole) not going to be going hungry.



The real bottom line is that the club is not a bottomless pit of cash - like most PL clubs. The Bournemouth chairman said as much in his recent interview, and now FSG who most people held as the shining example of club ownership have made the same move. We normally have huge revenues, but currently revenues are almost nil. We have a huge net worth but that's largely asset-based.

We don't know how things will play out yet, but I think that if the club continued to pay these staff at 100% but in 4 weeks time had to start laying them off due to growing financial problems we would see the exact same people on here saying that Levy should have used the gov scheme rather than allowing redundancies to happen. The words "immoral" and "negligent" would be far more apt in that environment in my opinion.
 

swarvsta

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
773
4,061
Really bemused by what you are disagreeing with @MK Yid from the horses mouth...

All 550 staff have had their salaries reduced.

The government furlough scheme will be used, where appropriate. The scheme can only be used in certain situations.

For example:

- you can only furlough if the employee was on PAYE before 28th February.

- you can’t furlough staff who are sick or self isolating.

- you can’t furlough staff who you have put on reduced hours. Security staff, perhaps.


Your comments patronising @MK Yid are incorrect. You might need to brush up your grammar, and also check your facts.
 

Dinghy

Well-Known Member
Jun 22, 2005
6,326
15,561
All 550 staff have had their salaries reduced.

The government furlough scheme will be used, where appropriate. The scheme can only be used in certain situations.

For example:

- you can only furlough if the employee was on PAYE before 28th February.

- you can’t furlough staff who are sick or self isolating.

- you can’t furlough staff who you have put on reduced hours. Security staff, perhaps.


Your comments patronising @MK Yid are incorrect. You might need to brush up your grammar, and also check your facts.
WTF are you on about? @MK Yid has even removed the disagree.
And everything you have posted ties in with what I was saying.
?‍♂️
 

Coyboy

The Double of 1961 is still The Double
Dec 3, 2004
15,506
5,032
The Government has updated the FL guidance such that employees can work for other employers while on FL meaning they could, in theory, earn 200% salary for half as much work (if allowed by their current employer and if that employer tops up).
 

dtxspurs

Welcome to the Good Life
Dec 28, 2017
11,234
46,574
Its just getting harder and harder to have much of a connection with the club currently. Asshole manager, asshole owners. Genuinely haven't missed them playing at all. Sure the way they were playing doesn't hurt that at all but none the less for the first time in probably 7 years I don't have the urge to watch them play every weekend.
 

Doctor Dinkey

Legacy Fan
Jul 6, 2013
3,591
8,687
Its just getting harder and harder to have much of a connection with the club currently. Asshole manager, asshole owners. Genuinely haven't missed them playing at all. Sure the way they were playing doesn't hurt that at all but none the less for the first time in probably 7 years I don't have the urge to watch them play every weekend.
Yes, and it's good to know that my taxes are going towards furloughing non playing staff who our hugely rich club feel too cash strapped to pay full wages for for a couple of months. And since I'm a season ticket holder I guess that means I'm contributing twice effectively.
 

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2012
38,247
104,143
Its just getting harder and harder to have much of a connection with the club currently. Asshole manager, asshole owners. Genuinely haven't missed them playing at all. Sure the way they were playing doesn't hurt that at all but none the less for the first time in probably 7 years I don't have the urge to watch them play every weekend.

Asshole fans too don't forget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top