Jump to content
IGNORED

The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

And likely to bankrupt every player within 2 months.

Only if the players are irresponsible with the whacking amounts of $$$$ they get paid and spunk it all up the wall every week, which would be madness considering that a career in football is hardly guaranteed.

The whole point of the £2500 limit the Gov set I thought was that this should cover most normal bills like rent etc especially with payment breaks on mortgages etc, but don’t our players mostly live in property the club owns?

 

Edited by Tinmans Love Child
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bcfc01 said:

I read on here somewhere, with some evidence, that the government have agreed that footballers are not working from home as their "work" is on a match day - rightly or wrongly that was the outcome apparently.

They can therefore technically be on furlough.

I have no idea of contractual situations and legalities but I don't see why they should be treated differently.

As an aside, people are saying that staff get 80% of their salary on furlough from the government which is incorrect as I understand it. The company gets the 80% to pay staff and there is nothing stopping them topping it up with the other 20% if they wish/can afford it.

 

So in ‘normal’ times they only get paid for working a match day?! I know it’s not you that’s saying this but that cannot possibly be true. What about players who don’t play, whether they don’t make the matchday squad, or are an unused sub or even injured? What about ding these common two week international breaks, do they only get half wages that month due to time off? 

The Government or whoever haven’t really thought this through have they!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Only if the players are irresponsible with the whacking amounts of $$$$ they get paid and spunk it all up the wall every week, which would be madness considering that a career in football is hardly guaranteed.

The whole point of the £2500 limit the Gov set I thought was that this should cover most normal bills like rent etc especially with payment breaks on mortgages etc, but don’t our players mostly live in property the club owns?

 

You can't expect people earning hundreds of thousands a year to have a lifestyle similar to someone on the national average.

They probably have 5 year mortgages for example, repaying a 25 year commitment for most people in a really condensed period, that won't be cheap!

Neither will be building up a sufficient pension pot.

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Considering they are thinking of cancelling Wimbledon at the end of June it’s very, very unlikely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
2 minutes ago, RedM said:

So in ‘normal’ times they only get paid for working a match day?! I know it’s not you that’s saying this but that cannot possibly be true. What about players who don’t play, whether they don’t make the matchday squad, or are an unused sub or even injured? What about ding these common two week international breaks, do they only get half wages that month due to time off? 

The Government or whoever haven’t really thought this through have they!

I guess there are so many variations of employment, so many differently worded contracts that no matter who was in government, they are never going to capture them all in the first round or two of measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

You can't expect people earning hundreds of thousands a year to have a lifestyle similar to someone on the national average.

They probably have 5 year mortgages for example, repaying a 25 year commitment for most people in a really condensed period, that won't be cheap!

Neither will be building up a sufficient pension pot.

You can’t, but you would expect them not to be living at the absolute maximum of that wage and have some ‘rainy day’ money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

You can’t, but you would expect them not to be living at the absolute maximum of that wage and have some ‘rainy day’ money.

And I'm sure a lot of them do.

Equally, this same argument could be applied to those at the other end of the pay spectrum who might be impacted quicker by a change in fortunes.

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I guess there are so many variations of employment, so many differently worded contracts that no matter who was in government, they are never going to capture them all in the first round or two of measures.

I’m not blaming anyone who governs in particular here, not at all. No political party would have handled everything any better here, such us the task and lack of experience of anything anyone has ever seen. It has been likened to a war, but someone in the forces on tv last night say it wasn’t true as at least in a war the enemy was visible.

I meant the fact that players don’t only be paid for working matchdays alone,  there maybe all sorts of clauses in their contracts but ‘if you don’t work a matchday you won’t get paid’ it’s not going to be one of them, who is going to agree to that for one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

You can't expect people earning hundreds of thousands a year to have a lifestyle similar to someone on the national average.

They probably have 5 year mortgages for example, repaying a 25 year commitment for most people in a really condensed period, that won't be cheap!

Neither will be building up a sufficient pension pot.

Im not sure of your point?  Are you saying people who get paid loads of money I.e. footballers should get financial help akin to what they earn so they can keep up with their massive mortgage and car payments?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Im not sure of your point?  Are you saying people who get paid loads of money I.e. footballers should get financial help akin to what they earn so they can keep up with their massive mortgage and car payments?

No. Where did I say that..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Im not sure of your point?  Are you saying people who get paid loads of money I.e. footballers should get financial help akin to what they earn so they can keep up with their massive mortgage and car payments?

No, I think you need to recognise that the outgoings of someone in a very time limited career will be significantly higher than those who spread their major life expenses over 25 years or more.

To expect someone who might find their current account credited with 30 or 40k a month find themselves trying to meet the same commitments on 2.5k a month isn't a recipe for success, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

If you earn 30k a year, the chances are you live a modest existence with an average house and car and possibly a holiday every year, but you will likely be able to support that lifestyle until you retire at 65 or so.

The same as if you earn 100k a year, only you'll likely have a bigger house, a newer car, a larger pension and a couple of breaks a year, safely thinking that you will maintain a similar income until you are 65.

A footballer will likely spent 5 years of their career working their way up to the big money, maybe 5 years on top money and then their income will drop significantly. So they are under pressure as well. A different pressure to the majority due to the nature of their jobs, but at the end of this season, they will all be another 12 months closer to their retirement date and in some cases, 12 months further away from reaching their potential whilst also being a year closer to retirement.

So I can see why clubs might be reluctant to insist on deferment and why players might not be welcoming of the idea.

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just listening to LJ on TALKSPORT talking about how he keeps in touch with the players . No  mention of potential cuts to players salaries and no mention of casual staff being laid off. More to do with players ringing up fans who are over 70  who have birthdays during this time and spending 20 minutes or so chatting to them, which I thought was a nice touch. 

  • Robin 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, E.G.Red said:

Just listening to LJ on TALKSPORT talking about how he keeps in touch with the players . No  mention of potential cuts to players salaries and no mention of casual staff being laid off. More to do with players ringing up fans who are over 70  who have birthdays during this time and spending 20 minutes or so chatting to them, which I thought was a nice touch. 

I'm sure it won't be long until someone says they should reverse the charges for the calls! ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

No, I think you need to recognise that the outgoings of someone in a very time limited career will be significantly higher than those who spread their major life expenses over 25 years or more.

To expect someone who might find their current account credited with 30 or 40k a month find themselves trying to meet the same commitments on 2.5k a month isn't a recipe for success, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

If you earn 30k a year, the chances are you live a modest existence with an average house and car and possibly a holiday every year, but you will likely be able to support that lifestyle until you retire at 65 or so.

The same as if you earn 100k a year, only you'll likely have a bigger house, a newer car, a larger pension and a couple of breaks a year, safely thinking that you will maintain a similar income until you are 65.

A footballer will likely spent 5 years of their career working their way up to the big money, maybe 5 years on top money and then their income will drop significantly. So they are under pressure as well. A different pressure to the majority due to the nature of their jobs, but at the end of this season, they will all be another 12 months closer to their retirement date and in some cases, 12 months further away from reaching their potential whilst also being a year closer to retirement.

So I can see why clubs might be reluctant to insist on deferment and why players might not be welcoming of the idea.

So I’m concluding your solution is that those who earn loads of money I.e. footballers should continue to do so so they can continue their high spending lifestyles, and those who earn very little in comparison can take a cut?  Really? Wow!  I’m happy for footballers to earn the big bucks in an industry that earns big bucks, but in the current global crisis for the whole of society including football fans, non playing staff etc to take the financial hit but footballers shouldn’t be impacted cause they have expensive lifestyles is on a completely different page to me.  
 

https://apple.news/AuOTX8u7dS42hdtoa6BiuZA

Edited by Tinmans Love Child
  • Like 4
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

So I’m concluding your solution is that those who earn loads of money I.e. footballers should continue to do so so they can continue their high spending lifestyles, and those who earn very little in comparison can take a cut?  Really? Wow!  I’m happy for footballers to earn the big bucks in an industry that earns big bucks, but for the whole of society including football fans, non playing staff etc to take the financial hit but footballers shouldn’t be impacted cause they have expensive lifestyles is on a completely different page to me.  
 

https://apple.news/AuOTX8u7dS42hdtoa6BiuZA

I just don't see the benefit in making everyone poorer.

Who benefits?

  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

These things just aren't comparable.

Apparently Daniel Craig is being paid 25 million for the latest Bond film.

And the film might be shit. And all you get is twenty minutes more 'entertainment' than a football match. 

Or 2 hours more entertainment than a typical City home match at Ashton Gate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I just don't see the benefit in making everyone poorer.

Who benefits?

Tough shit, they should have budgeted better before.

Are we as a country 'All in it together'? Like **** we are.

Football players seem to be an exceptional case and I hope we see a significant correction.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Tough shit, they should have budgeted better before.

Are we as a country 'All in it together'? Like **** we are.

Have you told your boss to pay you 20% less than usual so you can live by that claim?

I fear you are either living a very naive life or are undertaking some expert level trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

I'm guessing, it will be because players still have to work, they'll be training every day, doing the digital homework they get set, forced to follow a strict diet and all that sort of thing.

Whereas there isn't any work or expectation of work for a lot of other employees.

'Tis only a guess however.

Google Barcelona wage cut. 

Treasury doesn't consider training to be working hence relaxed about furlough. Maybe cut or defer a % based on non playing of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Have you told your boss to pay you 20% less than usual so you can live by that claim?

I fear you are either living a very naive life or are undertaking some expert level trolling.

Many people in the country will be furloughed. Hence down 20%.

Unfair of me to question players character tbh. It's still early days in the crisis after all. 

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

 

Players wages = Emperors new clothes.

Everyone in football, especially agents, continually justifies as to why they have to be at the level they are. Most fans , outside the really big clubs, know that wage levels cannot be really justified, and especially at our level when the majority of clubs are running at substantial losses, caused primarily by the wage budget.

How many owners, in their businesses outside of football, would pay staff wages that exceeded the business income?

Prior to the virus, there were already signs, through ffp issues, that clubs were starting to reassess their financial management, and perhaps when we eventually come out of this crisis, we might be pleasantly surprised by the direction that wage negotiations take.

Then again it is April 1st!

 

Edited by downendcity
  • Like 3
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Google Barcelona wage cut. 

Treasury doesn't consider training to be working hence relaxed about furlough. Maybe cut or defer a % based on non playing of games.

Barcelona have nothing to do with Bristol City. If we were Liverpool I could understand the comparison.

But you still haven't explained any benefit in the wage deferral. All it will do at this point is make people poorer and reduce the revenue the treasury receive. 

It might be there comes a time when they club need the players to take a cut or deferment, but at the moment if they are comfortable paying why shouldn't they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

I just don't see the benefit in making everyone poorer.

Who benefits?

By your thinking the rich people benefit the poor people have to suffer!  If footballers have 5 year mortgages like you mention that have high payments then they should have appropriate protection insurance (as I do) and they should also have appropriate income protection (as I do)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Many people in the country will be furloughed. Hence down 20%.

Players either have the right character or they don't. Not many do, across the board.

So you have taken a 20% paycut so you can display solidarity with a lot of people you will never meet or know, just so you can wave the 'we are all in this together' banner than means nothing whatsoever.

What a display of character.

I have no such plans to invite my employer to reduce my pay. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Barcelona have nothing to do with Bristol City. If we were Liverpool I could understand the comparison.

But you still haven't explained any benefit in the wage deferral. All it will do at this point is make people poorer and reduce the revenue the treasury receive. 

It might be there comes a time when they club need the players to take a cut or deferment, but at the moment if they are comfortable paying why shouldn't they.

Better sense of solidarity over there- or maybe different laws! 

Solidarity with lower paid staff? 

Recognition that the fans will have a fair proportion not in a good place?

Recognition that we're in extraordinary times?

Recognition that a loss making Club (many are), that a club who already loses money still paying out full whack when income falls isn't right. 

OTOH, the Treasury point is a good one that I hadn't really considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Better sense of solidarity over there- or maybe different laws! 

Solidarity with lower paid staff? 

Recognition that the fans will have a fair proportion not in a good place?

Recognition that we're in extraordinary times?

Recognition that a loss making Club (many are), that a club who already loses money still paying out full whack when income falls isn't right. 

OTOH, the Treasury point is a good one that I hadn't really considered.

If they really wanted to show solidarity they wouldn't take 500k a week contracts.

I did (some time back) ask questions on here of the club as to why they paid minimum wage and not living wage.

But there was no cry then of all being in this together or solidarity.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...