PFA Comment

Shadydan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
29,240
Read his comments again and come back and tell me what 'context' are you referring to that I've mis-interpreted.

.
Literally everything in this post:

 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
5,028
Well I’m in your 1%. I’m tied in for 9 more months and then Sky is gone. I had a season ticket for 12 years and still love watching Spurs. But it has governed my life too much and as I survey the greed and everything wrong with it, I now see the perspective of it all. Sorry, I will still trawl through this brilliant board, still to talk about with my mates and kids, but no more stopping everything just to watch Spurs v Bournemouth.

many things way more important than football and Spurs. My family for a start.
I have already cancelled BT Sport and will do the same with Sky. Not sure about the season ticket bu may give it up. At least my golf club, which after an abysmal winter is already facing problems. announced two weeks back we will get credit for all the time play is suspended plus a bonus payment if we renew in the summer. Spurs of course will just hike up the prices.
 

Spurslove

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
2,223
Literally everything in this post:

"Their whole tax argument would be more convincing if loads of them weren't using all sorts of creative accounting to dodge as much of it as they can"

Exactly as I said in another post previously. (See yesterday on this thread 7:01pm)

"Absolutely spot on mate. I bet the PFA are praying this subject never comes up for discussion for obvious reasons, but it's a fact that many if not all the top EPL players are receiving the highest level tax advice as to how best they can 'avoid' as much of their earnings as possible into off-shore tax havens".

So I'll ask you again, which ''context' have I misunderstood?

.
 
Last edited:

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
5,945
If clubs continue to pay 100% of players' salaries while receiving very little revenue, it won't be long before most clubs will run out of cash. (And almost as a side issue, players will lose a lot more than 30% of their salaries.)

Whether or not you agree with Rooney, this is a hugely significant fact that is, largely, being overlooked.

The authorities and the clubs ought to be working on a long-term strategic plan now, which will have to take into account a radically different financial landscape, and stop fantasising about restarting football more-or-less as normal in the next few months.
 
Last edited:

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
25,366
If clubs continue to pay 100% of players' salaries while receiving very little revenue, it won't be long before most clubs will run out of cash. (And almost as a side issue, players will lose a lot more than 30% of their salaries.)

Whether or not you agree with Rooney, this is a hugely significant fact that is, largely, being overlooked.

The authorities and the clubs ought to be working on a long-term strategic plan now, which will have to take into account a radically different financial landscape, and stop fantasising about restarting football more-or-less as normal in the next few months.
Yep, the West Ham owners are already trying to pump another £30m into the club. Others will have to do it too. Whether it becomes public until the clubs release their accounts though is less clear. I do think FFP will have to be relaxed for a certain short period though.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
18,399
Yep, the West Ham owners are already trying to pump another £30m into the club. Others will have to do it too. Whether it becomes public until the clubs release their accounts though is less clear. I do think FFP will have to be relaxed for a certain short period though.
I was thinking about this over the weekend.

For a long time there was the challenge of billionaires using their own money to buy success for their clubs and in return gain position. FFP was an attempt partly to stop or slow this down.

But with even wealthy football clubs asking for financial assistance from the government it is going to be a hard sell for the football authorities to stop clubs obtaining financial support elsewhere.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
25,366
I was thinking about this over the weekend.

For a long time there was the challenge of billionaires using their own money to buy success for their clubs and in return gain position. FFP was an attempt partly to stop or slow this down.

But with even wealthy football clubs asking for financial assistance from the government it is going to be a hard sell for the football authorities to stop clubs obtaining financial support elsewhere.
I think UEFA will have to do it along the lines of letting owners putting an amount in to satisfy the wages of the players on their books now but not any new contracts or purchases. Let owners put in the amount to cover the wages for 6 months or whatever but no more than that.
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
5,945
I was thinking about this over the weekend.

For a long time there was the challenge of billionaires using their own money to buy success for their clubs and in return gain position. FFP was an attempt partly to stop or slow this down.

But with even wealthy football clubs asking for financial assistance from the government it is going to be a hard sell for the football authorities to stop clubs obtaining financial support elsewhere.
I think it will have to go further than individual clubs looking after themselves.

I any case, some very large and important clubs will be threatened and how much money will owners be prepared to put at risk before they know whether a viable competition will be possible?

Levy for example (possibly not the best example!) wouldn't commit say £100m if he thought there was a risk that the Premier League itself might collapse, and TV rights along with it.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
18,399
I think it will have to go further than individual clubs looking after themselves.

I any case, some very large and important clubs will be threatened and how much money will owners be prepared to put at risk before they know whether a viable competition will be possible?

Levy for example (possibly not the best example!) wouldn't commit say £100m if he thought there was a risk that the Premier League itself might collapse, and TV rights along with it.
My point is if Prem clubs are suddenly very hard up and FFP is temporarily scrapped then what's to stop the likes of City's owners taking advantage of others poverty?

Investors likes Levy might see opportunity like when we bought Carrick from West Ham or the players from Leeds but those with no financial concerns could clean up.
 

Yid-ol

Just-in-Edinburgh
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
26,748
My point is if Prem clubs are suddenly very hard up and FFP is temporarily scrapped then what's to stop the likes of City's owners taking advantage of others poverty?

Investors likes Levy might see opportunity like when we bought Carrick from West Ham or the players from Leeds but those with no financial concerns could clean up.
Only way FFP should be scrapped is if the owner needs to inject money into the club to keep it going and no other reason. If a club is seen putting cash in when not needed sanctions should then be put in place.

Means the ones that need it keep the club's going but likes of city can't go pick up all the players they want for pennies!
 

Led's Zeppelin

Can't Re Member
Joined
May 28, 2013
Messages
5,945
My point is if Prem clubs are suddenly very hard up and FFP is temporarily scrapped then what's to stop the likes of City's owners taking advantage of others poverty?

Investors likes Levy might see opportunity like when we bought Carrick from West Ham or the players from Leeds but those with no financial concerns could clean up.
Yes, but my point is that what’s the point in Man City putting in a few hundred million, even if FFP is scrapped for survival purposes, if there’s no one worthwhile left to play?

To my mind it has to be a football-wide agreement. The sport will die if only a handful of stupidly rich clubs survive.

It’s exactly why it’s wrong sometimes to try to compare football with most other businesses. In most businesses, it benefits most successful owners to have as little competition as possible. In football, while everyone wants to be top, it becomes genuinely meaningless once “top” starts to become a monopoly just because no competition exists.

And unless the clubs and the authorities act together, there is for the first time ever a real possibility of that happening.
 
Joined
May 12, 2010
Messages
23,367
Former Tottenham and England midfielder Jermaine Jenas said the criticism levelled at Premier League players "was an absolute joke".

"Their hearts are in the right place - they wanted to have control over where money goes," he said.

"Essentially, if the players take a wage cut, the beneficiaries are the clubs. Their main concern is what is happening to this money. They are happy to put money into a pot, rather than it just vanishing.

"They want to have an influence as to where this money is going. Is it going to the NHS, school meals? They want control over that. They don't want to be dictated to by the Premier League - they don't want to have no idea where the money's gone."
 

Spurslove

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
2,223
If top players were that concerned about how that 30% of their wages would be spent, their argument would carry far more weight if they were not filtering off so much of their wages into off-shore bank accounts and various other tax havens.

Call me a cynic if you will, but unless someone can prove to me that players earning top Premier League wages are not engaged in tax evasion/avoidance on a massive scale, that's what I'll believe.

I think the players and the PFA are being massive hypocrites about all this but are desperately trying to project themselves as poor innocent victims trying to claim some sort of moral high ground.

Some players are demanding transparency from the clubs but how about some transparency from them too. Show us your monthly pay slips and/or your monthly expenditure details.

No, I never thought you would.
.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Joined
Jul 24, 2005
Messages
24,782
If top players were that concerned about how that 30% of their wages would be spent, their argument would carry far more weight if they were not filtering off so much of their wages into off-shore bank accounts and various other tax havens.

Call me a cynic if you will, but unless someone can prove to me that players earning top Premier League wages are not engaged in tax evasion/avoidance on a massive scale, that's what I'll believe.

I think the players and the PFA are being massive hypocrites about all this but are desperately trying to project themselves as poor innocent victims trying to claim some sort of moral high ground.

Some players are demanding transparency from the clubs but how about some transparency from them too. Show us your monthly pay slips and/or your monthly expenditure details.

No, I never thought you would.
.
It's ridiculous to even suggest it.

You wouldn't do it.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
27,154
I am no economist but this sounds like your classic example of trickle down economics. Argue that it's good for society if the wealthy remain wealthy.
Not all trickle down economics, normally is the idea that if you give the rich tax break that they will reinvest that in to the economy but that isn't true

This is the opposite of what people
Their whole tax argument would be more convincing if loads of them weren’t using all sorts of creative accounting to dodge as much of it as they can.
Footballers have been persecuted for this and can't do the image rights, out of the millionaire class, they do pay more tax than other industries of people in that class, they get their wages paid by PAYE which people earning that sort of money don't tend to get and tend to be self employed.

There was a leak of a footballers wages, and it was paid through PAYE, you cant get an accountant to be creative with that

This is part of a post I did in another thread, which is a major issue imo

Then the game could fundamentally be broken as come 1st of July teams will have lost one year off their players contract. All of sudden we have lost the value of players who had 2 years left(at the start of this season) on their contract who command a fee in the summer to nothing!

Players are expected to take a wage cut but for players you're asking for them to take money off their lifetime wage. For example, a player like Vertonghen, isn't going to earn alot of money after this contract and will end up retiring in the not too distant future. After retiring he will never earn the same amount of money again.

Then talking of footballers, they may feel aggrieved unlike most industries they are in a multi-millionaire class and unlike their peers in that class they pay tax on all their wages.(due to HMRC cutting down on tax evasion) So they feel like they probably deserve the wages they earn.

Crystal Palace have a wages to turnover percentage of 78%. They will struggle to pay their players wages so if they go in to admin should Zaha be allowed to leave for free if they haven't paid him in 3 months?
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
18,399
Not all trickle down economics, normally is the idea that if you give the rich tax break that they will reinvest that in to the economy but that isn't true

This is the opposite of what people
Didn't give an opinion on if trickle down economics is good for the economy, merely that the PFA's argument seems to mirror this theory.
 

beats1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
27,154
Didn't give an opinion on if trickle down economics is good for the economy, merely that the PFA's argument seems to mirror this theory.
Im not saying whether your opinion of trickle down economics is good for the economy

Im saying that your definition of trickle down economics is wrong.

Here is the definition of trickle down economics
Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term.

This is the opposite, they are saying by paying taxes that more money will go to the NHS, technically speaking they are right.
 
Top