Furloughing staff

Chirpystheman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
128
Because your analogy completely lacks any context whatsoever and firmly shows why you misunderstood @Colonel Dax in the first place. You're basing who you'd feel sorry for based on the value of the motor instead of what impact it has on the persons life. If the person who loses the cheap car was all he could afford, meaning they have no form of transport, meaning they lose their job and their source of income then it completely changes the perspective than if they can easily afford another car. You can't just say it's worse becauss one would be a bigger financial impact without the full context of how it affects their life hence why it's a completely ridiculous analogy.

And that was where I felt you completely misrepresented ColonelDax, he wasn't saying he doesn't give a shit if people with vast sums of money lose it out of envy. He was saying in the grand scheme of things if it comes down to people who have little keeping a roof over their head and food on the table for their families or billionaires losing a lot of money then he'd rather that billionaires lose some of their wealth to keep more families afloat.

Absolutely nothing to do with the idea that people would think it's fine for Joe Lewis to lose billions but simply prioritising those with less.
I total get that. Why does it fall on Joe Lewis to prop up all 200 of his businesses. People seem to be forgetting hes employed these people in the first place and this mess isnt his doing. Its tragic the impact its having on peoples lives rich and poor. Im not saying people should hold vigils for the super rich that are losing vast sums. My point is there seems to be an underlying tone of satisfaction if Lewis was to lose billions in this. People throwing about abuse for a person who has hired/employs over 200k people across his businesses. I wouldn't feel more sad for him over someone being made homeless but id still have sympathy for him. People seem to get a kick out of when those more fortunate fall on harder times. I suppose thats what the british media get off on and all the social media junkies live for these days.
 

Chirpystheman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
128
Also one last thing can people please get a real understanding of the furlough scheme. I see a lot of people saying of if come june July etc we can just use the scheme then if still no football. We can't. The scheme runs until the end of May after that you are on your own again (as it stands right now) So it was now or never. I hope everyone keeps their jobs. Time will tell
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
26,226
Players wages not going to be cut for now. Seems sensible.


Spurs won’t ask players to take pay cut until clarity on season
https://theathletic.com/1780896/2020/04/29/levy-wage-cuts-latest-tottenham-spurs-daniel-players/?source=user_shared_article


Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy has no plans to approach the Tottenham players to secure an agreement over wage cuts or deferrals and will instead wait until there is greater clarity over the devastating effect of the COVID-19 pandemic, The Athletic understands.

Discussions have taken place over the last month but, for the moment, Spurs will wait until the picture is clearer and observe what steps other Premier League clubs take before resuming talks. As The Athletic reported last week, the situation is also complicated by the fact that some of the squad feel that they have been undervalued in the past and were left frustrated by the club’s decision to furlough non-playing staff at the end of March. The players are aware that the club feels there is a need to review their wages but for the moment, both they and the Tottenham hierarchy agree that there are too many unknowns to press on.

One of the problems across the board in asking players to take cuts or deferrals is that it’s very difficult for clubs to quantify the losses they stand to make and therefore, be able to say with certainty what cuts are required and why. At Tottenham, it’s feared that the effects of the global pandemic could be especially acute because of Tottenham’s greater reliance on match-day income and revenue generated from external events at the stadium, like NFL matches, boxing fights and concerts.

Being able to bring in revenue in this way underpinned the thinking behind the £1 billion investment in the new stadium, which, based on sound rationale at the time, is now under threat. These concerns help to explain why, on March 31, Spurs became one of the first and so far one of the only Premier League clubs, after Newcastle set the precedent, to announce that they would be furloughing a section of non-playing staff and using the government’s Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to pay their wages. Levy reversed the decision a couple of weeks later in response to a fervent public backlash — not because he thought it wasn’t fiscally prudent. The decision was only reversed once Spurs had identified where they could make the savings elsewhere.

At around that time, Spurs hoped that the players would take a wage cut or deferral to help the situation. As Levy made clear in his statement when the furloughing was announced, he hoped “players and coaches (would do) their bit for the football ecosystem”. By the time the decision was reversed a couple of weeks later on April 13, it was understood that a wage cut of up to 30 per cent had been suggested to the players.

But despite player contributions being back up for discussion once the furloughing was reversed and it was confirmed that directors would still be taking pay cuts, Levy is not believed to have any current plans to take this conversation forward with the squad. Instead, Tottenham will be waiting for more clarity over elements like when the Premier League will resume before intensifying discussions. Some sources have even predicted that Spurs will be the last club to try to implement a policy on wage cuts or deferrals.

The Spurs squad, for their part, want to be united as and when they do agree a wage cut or deferral — and many have already made donations to the NHS on behalf of the Players Together initiative. Reaching a club or league-wide agreement on wage reductions is extremely challenging, however — in part because of players’ differing circumstances and commitments.

As for other Premier League clubs, there are precious few who have navigated the extremely delicate path towards an agreement on wage deferrals or cuts.

At Arsenal, the majority of the squad have agreed to a 12.5 per cent pay cut but news of Mesut Ozil rejecting the proposal led to considerable collateral damage in the process. Chelsea, meanwhile, rejected the players’ proposal of a cut of around 10 per cent over the weekend.

Only Watford (30 per cent deferral during the shutdown), Southampton (10 per cent deferral for three months), West Ham (undisclosed amount deferred for players that earn more than £16,000 per week) and Aston Villa (25 per cent deferral for four months) have reached an agreement.

Premier League clubs will discuss player contracts at their shareholders meeting on Friday, which may provide some clarity for Spurs on what level of cuts or deferrals are likely across the board.

Of the division’s managers meanwhile, Eddie Howe and Graham Potter have taken pay cuts, while David Moyes has agreed to a deferral. At Tottenham, head coach Jose Mourinho is expected to take whatever cut or deferral is agreed with the players.

It could be some time.
 
Top