What's new

Spurs fans call on club to copy Liverpool U-turn on taxpayer support

mawspurs

Staff
Jun 29, 2003
35,066
17,739
Tottenham have come under pressure from fans to follow Liverpool in reversing their decision to use public money to pay employees during the coronavirus pandemic.

Source: RTE
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,351
38,294
I don’t feel proud or what the club decided to do either.
I feel the same but just because it's hard to feel the passion with football like I used to. It's just a business these days. The soul has gone out of it.
 

JC-Rule

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
1,993
1,285
I feel the same but just because it's hard to feel the passion with football like I used to. It's just a business these days. The soul has gone out of it.

I accept that sport is big business, but I agree with you the pendulum may have swung to far now.

we do good things as a club and the foundation does excellent charity work which I’m proud of.

But at the time of greatest need, I think we look like opportunist.

I think the board should consider a reversal, right now we are being aligned with folks like Mike Ashley for crying out loud.
 

Phantom

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2005
5,856
3,212
We are still in the early stages in terms of knowing what comes next, if the Premier league season looks set to be voided I fully expect more clubs to take the same action we have. What is the alternative? Sacking non playing stuff? Like it or not clubs rely on income which is not coming in, whilst clubs in the Premier league are extremely wealthy, they have huge outgoings and losing gate receipts, match day merchandise sales, presumably reduction in sponsorship, no prize money, potentially losing TV money, etc for potentially several months is significant in the context of how football is financed. Particularly when taking into account the unwillingness of players (seemingly) to play their part.

For us I am sure the issue is far more acute, losing out on other sporting or other entertainment events which were factored in when building the stadium and taking out loans.

For clarity I am NOT happy with the fact any Premier league clubs have taken this action but I can understand it.
 

topper

Well-Known Member
Jan 27, 2008
3,806
16,254
We are still in the early stages in terms of knowing what comes next, if the Premier league season looks set to be voided I fully expect more clubs to take the same action we have. What is the alternative? Sacking non playing stuff? Like it or not clubs rely on income which is not coming in, whilst clubs in the Premier league are extremely wealthy, they have huge outgoings and losing gate receipts, match day merchandise sales, presumably reduction in sponsorship, no prize money, potentially losing TV money, etc for potentially several months is significant in the context of how football is financed. Particularly when taking into account the unwillingness of players (seemingly) to play their part.

For us I am sure the issue is far more acute, losing out on other sporting or other entertainment events which were factored in when building the stadium and taking out loans.

For clarity I am NOT happy with the fact any Premier league clubs have taken this action but I can understand it.
You’re not the ‘phantom’ are you by any chance? If I asked what your favourite colours are would the answer be blue and yellow?
 

Metalhead

But that's a debate for another thread.....
Nov 24, 2013
25,351
38,294
I accept that sport is big business, but I agree with you the pendulum may have swung to far now.

we do good things as a club and the foundation does excellent charity work which I’m proud of.

But at the time of greatest need, I think we look like opportunist.

I think the board should consider a reversal, right now we are being aligned with folks like Mike Ashley for crying out loud.
That's true actually - there is a decent connection to the local community via the foundation.
 

JC-Rule

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
1,993
1,285
We are still in the early stages in terms of knowing what comes next, if the Premier league season looks set to be voided I fully expect more clubs to take the same action we have. What is the alternative? Sacking non playing stuff? Like it or not clubs rely on income which is not coming in, whilst clubs in the Premier league are extremely wealthy, they have huge outgoings and losing gate receipts, match day merchandise sales, presumably reduction in sponsorship, no prize money, potentially losing TV money, etc for potentially several months is significant in the context of how football is financed. Particularly when taking into account the unwillingness of players (seemingly) to play their part.

For us I am sure the issue is far more acute, losing out on other sporting or other entertainment events which were factored in when building the stadium and taking out loans.

For clarity I am NOT happy with the fact any Premier league clubs have taken this action but I can understand it.

Spurs were quick of the mark to jump in for the furlough option.

What was the alternative? call in the players and ask them to consider a reduction pro rato for a few weeks, everyone tightens their belts, send a message to the season ticket holder/fans asking them to forgo their refunds should the matches not be played.

If all else fails then go to the government.

What did Spurs do? Nudge Newcastle out the way to be first in the begging queue.

Poor optics and looks bad on the club
 

Spurs 1961

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
6,665
8,739
They should put the playing staff on furlough. Each player on £100k a week means employing around 150 people on a average wages. The players can live on the £2500 a month or whatever the max is. No football so you don’t need players. You do need staff to look after the property grounds etc but footballers are superfluous right now
 

Phantom

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2005
5,856
3,212
What was the alternative? call in the players and ask them to consider a reduction pro rato for a few weeks, everyone tightens their belts, send a message to the season ticket holder/fans asking them to forgo their refunds should the matches not be played.

But this would have required unilateral action between the club and players and the many agents involved, what about the players on loan? What would happen if Spurs agreed a 40% cut but Liverpool agree 20% cuts? Do clubs appear to be good/bad in the eyes of prospective players based on what action is taken? If the odd player refuses to comply and it results in legal action for breach of contract? It all becomes very messy and possibly costly. If a single player in the changing room refuses and sours the relationship with the club and other players then what?

Whilst I agree in a perfect world the club should have tried that approach, there has obviously been discussion between the PFA and relevant bodies and these seem to be ongoing. It was reasonable to let them negotiations take its course? If the PFA agree an approach it becomes hopefully more straightforward (although not sure as this is unprecedented).

I agree entirely about the poor optics and said as such in another thread.
 

JC-Rule

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2005
1,993
1,285
But this would have required unilateral action between the club and players and the many agents involved, what about the players on loan? What would happen if Spurs agreed a 40% cut but Liverpool agree 20% cuts? Do clubs appear to be good/bad in the eyes of prospective players based on what action is taken? If the odd player refuses to comply and it results in legal action for breach of contract? It all becomes very messy and possibly costly. If a single player in the changing room refuses and sours the relationship with the club and other players then what?

Whilst I agree in a perfect world the club should have tried that approach, there has obviously been discussion between the PFA and relevant bodies and these seem to be ongoing. It was reasonable to let them negotiations take its course? If the PFA agree an approach it becomes hopefully more straightforward (although not sure as this is unprecedented).

I agree entirely about the poor optics and said as such in another thread.

Call a meeting with the players, ask then to consider all options, suggest the bigger boys in the room do a Vincent Kompany, (https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/man-city-legend-vincent-kompany-21789387) to lighten the load on the lesser boys.

It's messy yes, I agree, but give it go at least.

Don't just head for the easiest option out there.
 

dontcallme

SC Supporter
Mar 18, 2005
33,985
81,903
I have no idea about the economy in the big scheme of things.

Seems to me that the non-playing staff situation will be similar for each Prem club. Part of me thinks it would have been good if the Prem bosses could have got together and all acted the same if possible.

Probably unrealistic.
 

greywizard2020

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2003
331
709
I look at the example the Atletico Madrid organisation set when they took a 70% wage cut to allow the non-playing staff members to continue receiving their full wages:


This is what I'd rather our first team do. I understand it would be a lot harder for the U23 players to do it because their smaller contracts, therefore, they should be exempt. The established members of the first-team ought to be able to do this for the good of the wider network of club employees.

It would be interesting to know why the Atletico Madrid players can do this, but PL players can't look at this as a viable way?
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2003
5,850
8,794
I really don't get what all the fuss is about with the club using the government's furlough scheme.

There are legion righteous condemnations of the 'moral' and 'ethical' issues of a company with Spurs's turnover and profitability using a scheme ostensibly intended for small businesses, but isn't the point of the scheme to protect workers who would otherwise have no income? The club has (if I recall correctly) 550 of these. Who will all be receiving their usual full wages because of the club's action.

If the government intended only small businesses to use the furlough scheme then that should have been established in the rules. If it was too short-sighted to do so then any moral condemnation should be aimed at the bureaucrats who fucked up and not Levy, Ashley et al who are simply protecting their businesses.

As for Liverpool bowing to 'fan pressure' and reversing its decision to 'furlough' its workers, will those people now receive all of their wages or has LFC sacrificed its lower-paid staff on the altar of public opinion? We'll have to wait and see on that point, but surely leaving them to flounder would be more 'morally repugnant' than accepting government help to pay them.
 

double0

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2006
14,423
12,258
They should put the playing staff on furlough. Each player on £100k a week means employing around 150 people on a average wages. The players can live on the £2500 a month or whatever the max is. No football so you don’t need players. You do need staff to look after the property grounds etc but footballers are superfluous right now
The players bring the money and promote the club The staff manage main and of course do other things.

Levy is a business man and he will stand rise fall on that practice however a trick was surley missed in these unprecedented circumstances. The furlough could be used because they are tax payers and are entitled to it followed with a gesture from the club and players to meet the 20% short fall.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
They should put the playing staff on furlough. Each player on £100k a week means employing around 150 people on a average wages. The players can live on the £2500 a month or whatever the max is. No football so you don’t need players. You do need staff to look after the property grounds etc but footballers are superfluous right now

No they shouldn't at all from a business, legal or moral point of view at all.
Firstly the players would just refuse to go on furlough (yes, everybody can refuse to go on furlough if they choose, you just run the risk of redundancy if you don't accept it) and the club would be in breach of contract, meaning £500m of assets (or whatever current squad value is worth) could just walk away for nothing if they choose.

I think we may see players from lower divisions going on furlough though, where their asset value is significantly less.
 
Last edited:
Top