What's new

Furloughing staff

Chirpystheman

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2019
501
1,610
Even taking morals out of it I’m just shocked Levy could get this so wrong purely on a business level. I know loads that were borderline renewing because of the football we were playing and Mourinho but this is the last straw for many. Many sponsors present and future will feel the same. Who wants to be associated with a brand that’s morally corrupt. I’m personally finding it hard to believe in and support a club that can be so lacking in compassion.

Would these be the same big sponsors who are also using thr furlough scheme. How many of these big sponsors will be paying the full amount if the season gets voided or will the be asking for a refund without caring about the repercussions. If we are going to have a frank discussion about the whole situation please use the correct figures people. The club stands to lose up to £200m because of this. We have probably lost 40-50m in just matchday revenue and from the gigs and other events. We make 4m on matchday weve lost concerts boxing etc etc. Coupled with losing a quarter of all sponsorship and prize money/TV revenue. So to say its only 3m when you look and say weve lost out on £200m then 3m is a big chunk to save if possible. Business wise it makes total sense. Morally maybe not but we dont know how many of the 550 are actually being furloughed. The article i read was ambiguous. We can all judge next march when the accounts are published. If we dont make a big loss then its shameful but if we make as big a loss as i think we are then it will sit fine with me. You all forget our net spend for this season and we are the only football club in the world in £600m of debt. Lets not talk as if we are cash rich like Man City or Chelsea
 

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Aug 10, 2018
19,153
30,013
Would these be the same big sponsors who are also using thr furlough scheme. How many of these big sponsors will be paying the full amount if the season gets voided or will the be asking for a refund without caring about the repercussions. If we are going to have a frank discussion about the whole situation please use the correct figures people. The club stands to lose up to £200m because of this. We have probably lost 40-50m in just matchday revenue and from the gigs and other events. We make 4m on matchday weve lost concerts boxing etc etc. Coupled with losing a quarter of all sponsorship and prize money/TV revenue. So to say its only 3m when you look and say weve lost out on £200m then 3m is a big chunk to save if possible. Business wise it makes total sense. Morally maybe not but we dont know how many of the 550 are actually being furloughed. The article i read was ambiguous. We can all judge next march when the accounts are published. If we dont make a big loss then its shameful but if we make as big a loss as i think we are then it will sit fine with me. You all forget our net spend for this season and we are the only football club in the world in £600m of debt. Lets not talk as if we are cash rich like Man City or Chelsea


£3m it may be, but we stand to lose far more when it comes to getting the best deal for naming rights... thats if we havent got it already.

Also we havent lost that £3m yet, you can argue it is only deferred until we start playing again and if the media is to be believed that we are hell bent on finishign the season - then its a fair assumption.

I havent yet seen anything to suggest the staff will be gettign their salaries topped up however... which i think is the biggest issue here...
 

Chirpystheman

Well-Known Member
Jan 22, 2019
501
1,610
£3m it may be, but we stand to lose far more when it comes to getting the best deal for naming rights... thats if we havent got it already.

Also we havent lost that £3m yet, you can argue it is only deferred until we start playing again and if the media is to be believed that we are hell bent on finishign the season - then its a fair assumption.

I havent yet seen anything to suggest the staff will be gettign their salaries topped up however... which i think is the biggest issue here...

The 3m is wages so will be going out the door no matter what. Just people want to have a debate about a topic and talk as if we are only going to lose out on the wages. If you had to bet on it its likely this season will fail to finish. They just dont want to cause a riot this early and have to be seen to be doing everything to appease all sponsors and broadcasters. I think people are underestimating the financial hit to football clubs around the world. I dont think it will damage the brand that much. Will be forgotten when this all blows over. Not like sky will broadcast less games at the stadium because of it. Also every potential big sponsor would be doing the same. BT are trying to get rid of 13000. How many of you have cut you BT phone line to your house because of it. Id say of those that do the number is 0. So moral compass and all that
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
No the original poster is not alone, the action the board of this club have taken doesn't sit easily with me.
I will additionally say this, many on here have ridiculed Liverpool in the past on other things, me included, but one thing that their owners have done that sets them apart from our owners is that they have considered their decision, and in doing so they have listened to the majority of their fans and they have I believe taken a decision that is in accordance with the majority of their fans and decided to reverse their original decision and admit they were wrong. They did it with ticket prices too.

Our board have yet to do that. I'm taking a bit of a punt here because I don't profess to know everyone of our fans views, but I'm guessing that the decision to furlough non playing staff is not a decision that the majority of our fans agree with at all, maybe I've misunderstood our fanbase and I've got that wrong, but my gut instinct is that I'm not wrong on this point.

Do the majority of our fans views count for less than theirs ? They shouldn't, but according to Messrs Levy and Lewis they obviously do.

I've no doubt that there will be some on here that think that what I have just said means I'm uninformed and I'm ignorant and I'm too easily upset and I'm talking out of my arse. Before you come to that conclusion and post to this extent, consider the last paragraph after this.

On this matter, Liverpool's board have listened and considered their original decision and they have changed their mind and rightfully so in my opinion, and no one can change that perception or fact because the facts speak for themselves, loud and clear, and so too do the facts speak equally loud and clear in our board's case, but not in the same way I'm afraid to say....

not having a go at you directly but when news broke about both clubs furloughing their staff, it was announced that 550 nonplaying staff have been furloughed by Spurs (don't know the exact amount actually under the government scheme). when news broke of 200 for Liverpool, 1st it was highlighted well at least they are paying the 20%. now I'm not being funny but people having a moan about us 1, not changing like Liverpool have, or 2, at least not paying the 20% need to note the bolded in this post and notice we are near on talking about treble the amount of staff

with a lot of the staff at a guess, the hourly rates in London are usually more than up north. The thing is no one knows how long this will go on for, and if this season never resumes what actual cost will hit us let alone if it goes on a lot longer. I was always told PREVENTION is better than CURE. if this goes on for 3-4 months you won't see clubs using the furlough they will be making redundancies
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
Even taking morals out of it I’m just shocked Levy could get this so wrong purely on a business level. I know loads that were borderline renewing because of the football we were playing and Mourinho but this is the last straw for many. Many sponsors present and future will feel the same. Who wants to be associated with a brand that’s morally corrupt. I’m personally finding it hard to believe in and support a club that can be so lacking in compassion.

so what if those sponsors have stopped putting their income in because there isn't any football?

You seriously think £2-3m is gonna be the difference between us going under or not. There’s absolutely no justification to use the furlough scheme none.

how do you know for definite that everything will be ok in the next few months, if this was to go on till next year when is it best to say "SHIT"
 

Klinsmannesque

Well-Known Member
Jul 26, 2013
900
4,665
My issue with the scheme are how companies that don’t necessarily need it, still use it and I feel we are one. Plenty of clubs finding ways round not having to furlough. I get it’s business, but it’s taxpayer money that we have to find at a later date. There’s enough cash around the club and it’s owner to find a solution.

I also know of a hedge fund applying for the furlough scheme and they are swimming with cash. It’s all just the rich protecting their own pockets at the cost of the taxpayer, so much for we are all in this together. Taking advantage of a lifeboat for the vulnerable because it wasn’t afforded the time to close certain loopholes.
 

paulcumpstone

Well-Known Member
Jul 17, 2008
8,781
10,892
I think its appalling of the club to not be topping up the wages of the none playing staff. The club can clearly afford to.
 

Lighty64

I believe
Aug 24, 2010
10,400
12,476
According to Alaisdair Gold, 40% of the Staff have been furloughed.

Stated Here (Regarding Alan Sugar's Views)

if that is accurate then 550 are on 20% less wages, and 220 put on the government scheme. so the club are still paying 330 nonplaying staff even though at 20% less, that figure of 330 people who are getting 20% less when already on silly money is more staff than nearly every club with a small possibility that at a guess 550 is most probably more employees than any club in the country. I would also hazard a guess that the 220 transferred over to the government might be £20 worst off maximum my heart bleeds.

I know it's not the same as sick pay, but am I right some people are lucky to receive any money if they are sick for 6 weeks? I know they are not sick, but unfortunately, the whole country is on the edge from being ill or dying
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,548
45,031
£3m it may be, but we stand to lose far more when it comes to getting the best deal for naming rights... thats if we havent got it already.

Also we havent lost that £3m yet, you can argue it is only deferred until we start playing again and if the media is to be believed that we are hell bent on finishign the season - then its a fair assumption.

I havent yet seen anything to suggest the staff will be gettign their salaries topped up however... which i think is the biggest issue here...

Why?
 

rossdapep

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2011
21,904
78,639
Whilst I'm not in total agreement of this decision I'm actually not optimistic football will be returning for a good while.

I'm talking about months here, not the summer but possibly autumn/winter.

By that point, many clubs will have been forced to furlough as there's no way they can continue paying with so little in return.

No PL tv money.
No gate receipts.
No PL bonus money (final position, etc)

Potentially 6-9 months without these financial packages - whilst paying players salaries, bank loans, etc - and the club could soon become in a spot of bother.

The club are heavily reliant on these streams as they need to be generating that income to pay off the debt.

Lastly, what if the club are doing this so that they can save and ensure jobs when we return?

I guarantee a whole host of clubs will be laying ppl off buy the summer, as revenue dwindles.

The issue here is that the PL has become a monster, one that always had the potential to eat itself.

It looks bad, and if like the club to have topped up wages for a couple of months. But Levy is clearly looking at risk assessment, protect all assets.

Imagine if there's no football til 2021? Then imagine having to pay massive debts back without having the revenue? We'd not be making any signings any time soon and we'd end up having to sell off our top starts.

Also, I love the fact that City are getting praised for this. They're run by a state, a state that has major human rights issues, including slave trade, amongst their activities. Yet the footballing world happily turns a blinding eye to that.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
if that is accurate then 550 are on 20% less wages, and 220 put on the government scheme. so the club are still paying 330 nonplaying staff even though at 20% less, that figure of 330 people who are getting 20% less when already on silly money is more staff than nearly every club with a small possibility that at a guess 550 is most probably more employees than any club in the country. I would also hazard a guess that the 220 transferred over to the government might be £20 worst off maximum my heart bleeds.

I know it's not the same as sick pay, but am I right some people are lucky to receive any money if they are sick for 6 weeks? I know they are not sick, but unfortunately, the whole country is on the edge from being ill or dying

Jesus, Your guesses are just way off, There are clubs in the country with over 900 non-playing staff, and not furloughing, or reducing salaries of any of them.

£20 worse off. What you reckon on average our full time previously took home £100 per month ? Levy may be tight as a ducks ringpiece, but even he won't be getting away with paying people £100 per month for full time work.
Or are you saying 20 per day worse off, so £500 less a month for already very load paid workers, and you don't give a toss that our shareholders are in effect removing that from them, where no other club is ?
Could either call you a heartless bastard, or you must be related to Levy, not sure which is worse insult.
Maybe you have just gone so far balls deep in your support of Levy over the years that you cannot back down even though you really believe this is a shit move.

Joe Lewis, tax-exile 4.8 billion net worth, but no despite being the most profitable club in the country, let's take money off all our employees.
Maybe he will have to cut down to buying only 10 more houses, a plane, and 5 more businesses next year.
 
Last edited:

bubble07

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2004
22,959
29,895
Im in two minds whether I should give baldy rhe benefit of doubt. This decision could easily have come from Lewis. Levy has no choice but to follow and keep his mouth shut
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
One thing I am certain of.
The few people that are backing the club's decision, would instead be saying what a great caring man Levy is, and backing that decision if he had gone the other way and decided to do what every other club had done, and that is not true for those criticizing what the club has done, they would in the main have still judged it being right.
They are doing it out of blind loyalty for the man
 

Bobbins

SC's 14th Sexiest Male 2008
May 5, 2005
21,548
45,031
One thing I am certain of.
The few people that are backing the club's decision, would instead be saying what a great caring man Levy is, and backing that decision if he had gone the other way and decided to do what every other club had done, and that is not true for those criticizing what the club has done, they would in the main have still judged it being right.
They are doing it out of blind loyalty for the man

Well, you're absolutely incorrect.

I'm allowed to have a different opinion to you which isn't based on blind loyalty to a person I've criticised many times in the past, and you don't get to decide what my motivations are.

I simply disagree with you (as do many people, not "the few") with regards to what the club is doing.
 

pagevee

Ehhhh, What's up Doc?
Oct 4, 2006
644
147
Alright, just looked at the 2020 Financial Report from the official site.
-2019 shows wages of 561 employees around 179,000,000 pounds.
-Spotrac.com shows player wages around 81,000,000 pounds (86,000,000 last season). Let us assume that the first team wages total approximately 85,000,000 pounds.
-Financials show Directors wages around 6,400,000 pounds.
-244 player & football admin staff
-217 admin staff
-100 retail staff
-162 temporary staff average for matches.

This means that non-players/non-directors earn around 87,600,000 pounds annually. Lets assume that 44 of the 244 are players/coaches/directors not under financial hardship. That leaves 517 employees (679 including temporary workers) to claim the 87,600,000 pounds. This Averages about 2300 pounds a week for 679 employees, 2970 pounds a week for 517 employees.

Going furlough at 80% for 517 employees adds up to about 595 pounds each week. So they receive 2376 pounds instead of the 2970 weekly but have their jobs guaranteed. There are 56 pay periods a year with weekly pay structures. That is 14 paychecks a quarter at the reduced 80%, costs each employee an average of 8330 for 3 months. The 20% wage cut seems to be around 4,306,610 pounds for the 517 employees on furlough over 3 months.

The Directors voluntarily decreased their weekly payment by 20% decreasing their weekly pay by an average of 22,857 pounds. The Directors will give up 319,999 pounds for the same 3 month period.

Let's say that the club reverses the decision to furlough but in three months decides to lay off 5% of the furlough group (25 people). The average salary for the furlough group (87,600,000/517) is around 169,439 pounds annually. This 5% reduction will save the club 4,235,976 pounds annually.

Oh yeah, using the furlough program will save the club 1,564,285 (87,600,000/56) pounds per week. The furlough program will save the club 21,900,000 pounds over 3 months.

I admit to valuing the job guarantee aspect of the furlough program. Does it seem far fetched for clubs to reduce their non-playing staff by a minimum of 5%? I am a cynic, I think it will be worse.

These numbers are definitely not perfect or precise. I don't think I made any false assumptions but think they are still in the ballpark/reasonable.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
I am very confused as to why footballers contracts can't be furloughed but everyone elses can. Surely they are simply employees of the club? I mean, yeah, the limit on flowering is 80% or up to £2,500, so it would be up to the clubs to decide if they wanted to top up any, but if they are that concerned that they need to start putting club and stadium staff on furbies, making every cut possible, then that would surely also include the players.

Yet here they are, apparently not furrowable for some strange reason. They are the best equipped to do it too - are you telling me none of them have any savings at all? Most of the staff laid off probably have no savings but they also have very little opportunity to build up those savings. Players do.

Football is going to be a very different place after this. I've lost a lot of respect for a lot of players. There's nothing stopping any of them from declaring they are willing to take the cut - I get that the PFA have said their piece but being considered a scab by the PFA and it's associates isn't comparable to the miners in the 80s that people will inevitably compare it to if someone does break ranks.

It would probably be seen as breach of contract for one thing and you risk the players walking away on a free.

The other issue is that furloughed staff aren't allowed to work for their employer, so no training at home, no telling them what they can and can't eat, etc.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
Personally I don't have enough information to know if the club are making the right financial decision.
People are assuming that the club will be ok and that we can afford to pay the workers as we're only talking about £3m or so, but it's £3m on top of the other losses that we're going to incur. None of us on here know how long this will go on for, or what the financial implications of not playing and not being able to fulfill our contractual obligations are. I do know that the current situation hits every risk that the club highlights in their annual accounts statement. I'm not going to compare us to other clubs as none of the other clubs have just moved into a brand new stadium.
Morally I don't mind us using the furlough scheme. Half the businesses in the country appear to be using it (including the one I work for). I do wish that we were topping the wages up to full pay though.
 

Rocksuperstar

Isn't this fun? Isn't fun the best thing to have?
Jun 6, 2005
53,288
66,756
The other issue is that furloughed staff aren't allowed to work for their employer, so no training at home, no telling them what they can and can't eat, etc.

That's a good point, but this is all getting caught up in words on paperwork when, in the real world, where they apparently don't live on a full time basis, facts are facts and the world is in a bind. If it was declared football wasn't going to restart for months more, that the club they are contracted to is going to fold, the league they compete in's main sponsor goes broke or anything like that - what they expect the world to do, pick up that enormous pay packet while they don't do what they're being paid for?

Musicians and actors are very similar to footballers in as much as they entertain crowds and, right now, not a single musician or actor can make a penny - Their entire industry is, right now, dead and they get to lump in with everyone else because their skill, their career right now isn't happening. Why are footballers so different? Is it just because they have several more zeroes arrive in their account each month?

It makes, literally no sense. The levels of respect that I had for footballers is evaporating rapidly and when people would gripe over their pay, I used to argue that - it's a short, precarious career, that could be ended with one errant boot. Well here's a big fucking virus smothered boot... pull your weight.
 

Wsussexspur

Well-Known Member
Oct 2, 2007
8,918
10,176
With Liverpool announcing on Monday that they have reversed their decision to furlough a section of their non-playing staff, where does that leave Tottenham?
Spurs became the second Premier League club after Newcastle to make use of the government’s furlough scheme last week, at the same time that they announced that all non-playing staff were taking a 20 per cent pay reduction.
Of Spurs’ 550 non-playing staff, around 40 per cent are being placed on furlough, which means the UK government paying 80 per cent of their wages up to £2,500 per month. Those that have been furloughed are members of staff who can’t do their job from home — like, for instance, workers at the currently-closed club shop.
Taking government money to pay staff has caused consternation among supporters and the wider football community, especially as the announcement was made on the same day annual accounts for the year up until June 30, 2019, showed chairman Daniel Levy taking home a £7 million salary and Spurs posting pre-tax profits of £87.4 million (a Premier League high).
After Liverpool’s announcement on Monday night, the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters’ Trust (THST) urged the club to “pause and rethink. We are now saying it clearly and in public — do not further damage the Club’s reputation, listen to your fans.”
Tottenham’s stance remains as it was when they first revealed the wage cuts and furlough plans: “We shall continue to review this position.” Staff will not be paid for April until the end of the month, so there is still plenty of time for the situation to change before they have received their first reduced wage packet.
How then did it get to this point? Why has a club seemingly in such a strong financial position taken the stance they have and as yet not reversed it?
The picture is more complicated than the one painted by those annual results, which, almost a year out of date, already feel as though they are from another lifetime.
The decision taken by Levy last week was not one that was universally popular at the club. Some opposed it entirely, others felt it would be sensible to at least hold fire on such a drastic step.
Levy was unmoved though and pressed on. He is not a man too bothered by public perception and his sole focus is doing whatever he feels is needed to keep the club surviving and sustainable. Announcing the decision on March 31 would also give staff who were having their wages reduced the maximum notice ahead of their next payday on April 30.
Principally, Levy made the decision because he is nervous about what lies ahead for Tottenham in light of the COVID-19 crisis. Every club faces a potentially terrifying future but Spurs’ situation is made more acute by their new £1 billion stadium.
Tottenham used up their cash reserves on the stadium, without taking public money, and have not had long enough to build them back up again. With no income for at least the next couple of months — bar a relatively meagre amount from online retail — Levy feels he must strip every cost he can out of the business bar letting staff go, which remains the last resort.
The huge investment in the stadium was always deemed worthwhile because of what Spurs would get back in return. But not only was that predicated on hosting regular Tottenham games — the idea was that income would also be generated from concerts and events from other sports like boxing and rugby. All of those have been cancelled for the next few months, and alongside no match-day income (Spurs’ match-day revenue is bettered only by Manchester United in the Premier League), that’s wiped tens of millions off the balance sheet.
The absence of other forecasted sources of revenue like season ticket renewals has been similarly damaging. And should the doomsday scenario occur and the season be voided, then Spurs would also face having to refund their remaining five home games — of which three are against Arsenal, West Ham and Manchester United, three of the biggest games of the season (a fee that would comfortably surpass £15,000,000) — not to mention missing out on their chunk of the £762 million Premier League TV deal.
Concerns like these are universal for Premier League sides but it is the context of the new stadium that makes Spurs feel they are especially acute for them — since unlike West Ham and Manchester City, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium was built using private rather than public money and must be repaid.
We explained last week that Tottenham managed to refinance their construction borrowings on a good long-term rate and so are not in immediate financial danger. The fear is that with income drying up, those debts suddenly look a lot more daunting.
Time will tell whether he has been prudent or paranoid, but Levy was quick to recognise the havoc that the current global pandemic would wreak on football. The Athletic understands that soon after the Premier League was halted in mid-March, Levy was already fearing the worst. He viewed player pay cuts as being an inevitable necessity to make up for the shortfall in revenues like television money and anticipated the COVID-19 crisis leaving a number of clubs insolvent.
Levy is said to have feared the Premier League might not return until much later this year or even beyond, and so decided that decisive action was necessary. Again, we will only know how accurate these fears were over the coming months while the actions of other Premier League clubs will illustrate how much of an outlier Spurs’ were in reducing wages.
The picture with regards to player wage cuts will also sharpen into focus over the next few days but that was another intention of last week’s furloughing announcement. In a thinly-veiled message to all Premier League players, not just Tottenham ones, Levy wrote: “We hope the current discussions between the Premier League, PFA and LMA will result in players and coaches doing their bit for the football eco system.”
The PFA and Premier League have subsequently been locked in discussions over what a wage-cut looks like for the players. Negotiations remain ongoing and should an agreement be reached, then Levy will consider the hit his reputation took worth it to accelerate the process. This ties in again to the fact that his only consideration is keeping Spurs surviving and sustainable.
There may though be further collateral damage. The Tottenham players only found out about the furloughing decision when it was announced publicly. Some were left disappointed on behalf of the colleagues taking a pay-cut and fearful that they themselves were being targeted, The Athletic understands. On Monday, Jan Vertonghen retweeted confirmation of Liverpool’s decision to reverse their furloughing policy — only to quickly delete it.
As has been reported, there has been widespread frustration among footballers about the way public figures have caricatured them as selfish and money-grabbing while demanding that they take wage cuts.
Tottenham’s decision to furlough non-playing staff could also do damage in other ways. The absence of match-day staff is unlikely to affect results on the pitch but losing recruitment staff might. Senior staff like chief scout Steve Hitchen continue to work on reduced wages but other members of the recruitment team have been placed on furlough. Spurs feel they have already identified their summer targets and so can absorb the temporary losses but there are those that fear they might lose ground to rivals over the longer term. Again, the coming months and possibly even years will be telling.
In some respects, the players and many of those running the clubs are in agreement. Both feel that individuals and businesses that earn more than players and football clubs have been the subject of far less financial censure.
A club like Spurs will always be the subject of greater scrutiny though, since there is such an emotional investment made by supporters and a yearning for them to do the “right” thing. This was also the case with Liverpool and is a major reason why they decided to u-turn on their original decision.
Spurs will also always be a lightning rod for as long as they are owned by billionaire Joe Lewis, who is worth in excess of £4 billion and lives as a tax exile in the Bahamas. The optics of taking government money while Lewis continues not to put his own cash into the club are awful. Tottenham will feel they have always been self-sufficient and after not taking public money for the stadium,, build are entitled to do so now in a time of unprecedented hardship.
As with every decision they have made, it is the prerogative of every supporter and observer to decide whether they think it has merit.
 

SPURSLIFE

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2011
1,578
2,132
Would these be the same big sponsors who are also using thr furlough scheme. How many of these big sponsors will be paying the full amount if the season gets voided or will the be asking for a refund without caring about the repercussions. If we are going to have a frank discussion about the whole situation please use the correct figures people. The club stands to lose up to £200m because of this. We have probably lost 40-50m in just matchday revenue and from the gigs and other events. We make 4m on matchday weve lost concerts boxing etc etc. Coupled with losing a quarter of all sponsorship and prize money/TV revenue. So to say its only 3m when you look and say weve lost out on £200m then 3m is a big chunk to save if possible. Business wise it makes total sense. Morally maybe not but we dont know how many of the 550 are actually being furloughed. The article i read was ambiguous. We can all judge next march when the accounts are published. If we dont make a big loss then its shameful but if we make as big a loss as i think we are then it will sit fine with me. You all forget our net spend for this season and we are the only football club in the world in £600m of debt. Lets not talk as if we are cash rich like Man City or Chelsea
It's not the staffs fault we are 600mil in debt.
 
Top