Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

nicola1111

Furloughing staff at the club

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if we have furloughed non-playing staff at our club, ala liverpool and Newcastle, or if we are bearing the financial burden ourselves (as we should imo)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we have, and depending on how much they earn it's a bit of both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, of course I cant ask for specifics from you. 

But, in your opinion do you feel we are being a bit cheeky not treating all NPS the same, or are there good reasons behind those that are furloughed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, nicola1111 said:

Does anyone know if we have furloughed non-playing staff at our club, ala liverpool and Newcastle, or if we are bearing the financial burden ourselves (as we should imo)

Genuinely interested why you think the club should carry the financial burden?

Why are they different from any other business whose revenue has slumped but they have ongoing costs to maintain the business?

  • Like 2
  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What information do you have that were aren't treating all NPS the same, from what I know the club are being more than fair compared to some employers? I assumed it was all NPS employed by Bristol Sport etc, not including outside contractors.

I agree its a whole different thing regarding players. Hard to accept that any club should be looking to tax payers to bail them out when the majority of key workers working at the moment are from the lowest paid and most undervalued sector, yet being asked to do the most. (And for only 20% more than their friends and families who are sitting safely at home).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, nicola1111 said:

Thanks for the reply, of course I cant ask for specifics from you. 

But, in your opinion do you feel we are being a bit cheeky not treating all NPS the same, or are there good reasons behind those that are furloughed? 

Can't imagine there is anything for them to do which is why they've been furloughed.

No matches, no hospitality, no idea when they'll be open again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Meh said:

Genuinely interested why you think the club should carry the financial burden?

Why are they different from any other business whose revenue has slumped but they have ongoing costs to maintain the business?

Think the main point is that a lot of the time it's the unrecognised folk who keep the clubs running behind closed doors, and who I imagine get paid an average salary with wives/husbands/kids/mortgages etc still to pay and support. These are people getting laid off and furloughed. Yet we also pay other people 20k a week who arent currently having to do their sole job of entertaining fans. As a club who we all put our hard earned cash into supporting you want to do things done the right way and many people are probably of the opinion that some of the privileged players we choose to support would see that situation and maybe suggest they could survive of 19500 quid a week and help keep someone else in employment. 

I think the players would accept given the current situation that a 10% salary decrease to keep others in employment would be fair, seeing as they arent actually playing any games right now. However, to hear that people are getting furloughed with option to lose jobs while other collect 20k a week to do nothing just helps reiterate the them and us divide between fans and players that has come about since all the money has been pumped in 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RedM said:

I agree its a whole different thing regarding players.

I find it weird that Bears have implemented wage reductions but City & Flyers have not. Or that certainly was the case a week or two ago. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Can't imagine there is anything for them to do which is why they've been furloughed.

No matches, no hospitality, no idea when they'll be open again.

Interesting you dont feel we should furlough our whole squad by the same logic? Or are they more important than the backroom staff who keep the club running? Once football resumes the furloughed staff will be needed again

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, City18 said:

Interesting you dont feel we should furlough our whole squad by the same logic? Or are they more important than the backroom staff who keep the club running? Once football resumes the furloughed staff will be needed again

I guess until the FA or whoever decide what to do regarding the season the players are on ‘standby’ to work, ie following a training plan and are available to work.

The furlough agreement I saw was that the employee agreed to be furloughed and not to do any paid work either for that employer or anyone else. I would assume that by still training the players are doing paid work, so therefore cannot be furloughed as they would be legally obliged to stop.

  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, City18 said:

Interesting you dont feel we should furlough our whole squad by the same logic? Or are they more important than the backroom staff who keep the club running? Once football resumes the furloughed staff will be needed again

If we suddenly get a 'football starts again next week' and you have furloughed the playing staff, you could well find a situation where you have players who haven't trained to any degree because they've technically been 'laid off' for the duration of this shut down.

As it is, they are training every day so that when football restarts, they should be largely okay, if not match sharp.

A catering manager or hospitality booker is unlikely to have the same demands on their time.

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

I find it weird that Bears have implemented wage reductions but City & Flyers have not. Or that certainly was the case a week or two ago. 

I think a few of the Flyers are from the Us/Canada and were allowed to return to their home countries when they were still able to do so a couple of weeks ago. Not sure what is happening to the rest of them re training etc if a chunk of their squad has gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, City18 said:

Think the main point is that a lot of the time it's the unrecognised folk who keep the clubs running behind closed doors, and who I imagine get paid an average salary with wives/husbands/kids/mortgages etc still to pay and support. These are people getting laid off and furloughed. Yet we also pay other people 20k a week who arent currently having to do their sole job of entertaining fans. As a club who we all put our hard earned cash into supporting you want to do things done the right way and many people are probably of the opinion that some of the privileged players we choose to support would see that situation and maybe suggest they could survive of 19500 quid a week and help keep someone else in employment. 

I think the players would accept given the current situation that a 10% salary decrease to keep others in employment would be fair, seeing as they arent actually playing any games right now. However, to hear that people are getting furloughed with option to lose jobs while other collect 20k a week to do nothing just helps reiterate the them and us divide between fans and players that has come about since all the money has been pumped in 

So you want the players to take a pay cut as they have no games? If they are then asked to play 4 games a week for a month to finish they season will you agree they should be paid more?

As for furloughed staff, they are being paid and are keeping their jobs. I can’t see the issue 

  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, City18 said:

Interesting you dont feel we should furlough our whole squad by the same logic? Or are they more important than the backroom staff who keep the club running? Once football resumes the furloughed staff will be needed again

Furlough pay is £600 per week. Players are paid ten times this and more.  You want players to live on £600 per week?!?!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is slightly unfair just picking out footballers as high earners who should be doing a lot more, there are plenty of multi millionaires and billionaires out there and the likes of people at the head of banks, stockbrokers etc. Starbucks, Amazon etc pay how much tax exactly?

My issue is at the minimum, the non playing staff and staff in other businesses who get furloughed should at the very least be getting their salaries topped up by owners so they are not losing out if they can afford to (likes of Branson, Tim Martin, Ashley). If owners cannot afford that in the football industry, then ask the players to to take a small pay cut for a few months to help pay for the less fortunate. I honestly don't think many would disagree to do it, the trouble is the way it has been handled has been very poor, and now ALL footballer have been labelled as greedy and self centred etc - granted there are players who are like that, the same as in any other business.

  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Furlough pay is £600 per week. Players are paid ten times this and more.  You want players to live on £600 per week?!?!

I would love some players to try and live on £600 per week tbf, it may bring a few of them back down to Earth. I also imagine that the ones earning 10 - 40 times more than that (at our club) would at least have some money in the bank to survive a few months, after earning those obscene amounts.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RedM said:

I guess until the FA or whoever decide what to do regarding the season the players are on ‘standby’ to work, ie following a training plan and are available to work.

The furlough agreement I saw was that the employee agreed to be furloughed and not to do any paid work either for that employer or anyone else. I would assume that by still training the players are doing paid work, so therefore cannot be furloughed as they would be legally obliged to stop.

I do not know the conditions of the clubs furlough however. Several companies have but people on furlough until end of April and then told if things dont change they will lose their jobs.

People are also being asked to take 10% cuts to salary and hours to keep businesses going. If staff are simply furloughed until season resumes, 80% govt pay and then resume work as normal then guess this is okay. However if they have uncertainty around job after which large parts of the country have, then to continue to fully pay players to light train doesnt sit right with me. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of playing staff etc, whilst I acknowledge that their salary is still extremely high compared to the average person on the street, they will have experienced a pay cut of sorts as I would be amazed if all of their salaries weren't basic with a healthy appearance bonus on top, which of course they won't be getting at present. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wood_red said:

I would love some players to try and live on £600 per week tbf, it may bring a few of them back down to Earth. I also imagine that the ones earning 10 - 40 times more than that (at our club) would at least have some money in the bank to survive a few months, after earning those obscene amounts.

 

Reality is, it is highly unlikely their basic outgoings would be met on £600 per week, so aside from putting them in the poor house, I'm not sure what it would achieve.

Unless of course, you subscribe to the school of thought that everyone should live a basic lifestyle regardless of their income.

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure the club is topping up any wages to ensure furloughed staff still receive 100 per cent of their money. The question is more whether a professional football club should be furloughing staff and taking advantage of tax players money when it can afford to pay footballers £20k a week let alone £2400 a month. 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Furlough pay is £600 per week. Players are paid ten times this and more.  You want players to live on £600 per week?!?!

No, but club doesnt need to pay them full when they're 'light training' and not playing any games. While others in the company are being put on furlough. I'm sure the strain a 20% decrease in income to those furloughed compared to a footballer taking a cut down to 16k a week would be far greater.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, City18 said:

I do not know the conditions of the clubs furlough however. Several companies have but people on furlough until end of April and then told if things dont change they will lose their jobs.

People are also being asked to take 10% cuts to salary and hours to keep businesses going. If staff are simply furloughed until season resumes, 80% govt pay and then resume work as normal then guess this is okay. However if they have uncertainty around job after which large parts of the country have, then to continue to fully pay players to light train doesnt sit right with me. 

Let's say someone who works in the Heineken lounge decides to leave and take a job elsewhere, they'll likely leave with best wishes, good luck in your new role and a thanks for your efforts.

They'll likely be replaced overnight.

If a player decides they want to leave, it'll involve a multimillion pound payment coming in to the club. The players are assets and therefore different treatment will apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meh said:

Genuinely interested why you think the club should carry the financial burden?

Why are they different from any other business whose revenue has slumped but they have ongoing costs to maintain the business?

I think the club should be consistent, if they want to furlough non playing staff they should also furlough players IMO.  I don’t think it’s in the spirit of things to take government moment to pay non playing staff whilst the club is continuing to pay players full pay, it’s double standards and impacting the non playing staff unjustly.  This isn’t about attacking footballers for what they earn, it’s about consistency of approach 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedM said:

What information do you have that were aren't treating all NPS the same, from what I know the club are being more than fair compared to some employers? I assumed it was all NPS employed by Bristol Sport etc, not including outside contractors.

I agree its a whole different thing regarding players. Hard to accept that any club should be looking to tax payers to bail them out when the majority of key workers working at the moment are from the lowest paid and most undervalued sector, yet being asked to do the most. (And for only 20% more than their friends and families who are sitting safely at home).

That came from you just now when you said it was a mix of both furlough and some being paid fully by the club.

1 hour ago, Meh said:

Genuinely interested why you think the club should carry the financial burden?

Why are they different from any other business whose revenue has slumped but they have ongoing costs to maintain the business?

Because we have staff we continue to pay hundreds of thousands per year, seems wholly unfair that staff on 16k have to survive on 20% less during this period. 

Not to mention our exceedingly wealthy owner who, as much as I love and appreciate him, contributes less to the UK in tax than he ought to.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nicola1111 said:

Does anyone know if we have furloughed non-playing staff at our club, ala liverpool and Newcastle, or if we are bearing the financial burden ourselves (as we should imo)

Why should we be bearing the financial burden ourselves..?

The government have put a scheme in place for all businesses effected by lack of trade and the staff that are most vulnerable as a result. 
Why should our (or any clubs) staff not use the scheme..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Furlough pay is £600 per week. Players are paid ten times this and more.  You want players to live on £600 per week?!?!

Players should do what any other sensible person does and make sure they prepare for when time’s are tough.  

We are always told that football is a short career, and we all know examples of players who might get one big contract but for whatever reason can’t get another and slip down the leagues.  Therefore, any player earning a considerable sum currently who doesn’t save money, have appropriate income protection or mortgage cover is an idiot quite frankly.
 

If I can’t earn what I earn (currently £60k) if I get furloughed (Still waiting time hear), because of my salary I will be considerably out of pocket each month, but I can take a mortgage break, I have savings, and I will make adjustments.  I don’t see why players are any different.

This is not about picking out footballers for earning lots of money, fair play to them, but to say they can’t be impacted financially because they earn too much money and won’t be able to pay for their massive houses and sports cars is not valid, unless the footballer in question has been reckless with their spend, in which case that’s their own fault I’m afraid, the same as it would be for me.  I earn pretty good money and that comes with a responsibility IMO.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I think the club should be consistent, if they want to furlough non playing staff they should also furlough players IMO.  I don’t think it’s in the spirit of things to take government moment to pay non playing staff whilst the club is continuing to pay players full pay, it’s double standards and impacting the non playing staff unjustly.  This isn’t about attacking footballers for what they earn, it’s about consistency of approach 

So you advocate a player having a contract that allows them to give one months notice of resignation.

Interesting. Might prove to be costly.

If you want consistency then they would need to level the playing field on both sides.

Just imagine the waiter dropping a tray of empty plates and getting fined 2 weeks wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

So you advocate a player having a contract that allows them to give one months notice of resignation.

Interesting. Might prove to be costly.

If you want consistency then they would need to level the playing field on both sides.

Just imagine the waiter dropping a tray of empty plates and getting fined 2 weeks wages.

You are being facetious, you know exactly what my point is 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, City18 said:

Interesting you dont feel we should furlough our whole squad by the same logic? Or are they more important than the backroom staff who keep the club running? Once football resumes the furloughed staff will be needed again

I don’t think you’ve read up on the Furlough criteria. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I think the club should be consistent, if they want to furlough non playing staff they should also furlough players IMO.  I don’t think it’s in the spirit of things to take government moment to pay non playing staff whilst the club is continuing to pay players full pay, it’s double standards and impacting the non playing staff unjustly.  This isn’t about attacking footballers for what they earn, it’s about consistency of approach 

The furlough scheme isn’t there to protect highly paid individuals, in any industry. 
Their payroll inputs don’t qualify them for the scheme. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

The furlough scheme isn’t there to protect highly paid individuals, in any industry. 
Their payroll inputs don’t qualify them for the scheme. 

When I say furlough the players, To clarify I don’t think the club should be claiming £2500 off the government per player, I think the club should pay them 80% of their salary, so they are impacted financially the same as the NPS, maybe not furlough but in the spirit of what furloughing is doing.  

Edited by Tinmans Love Child

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

You are being facetious, you know exactly what my point is 

Yes. You want consistency where it suits your agenda.

Reality is, anyone can ask for any salary and it's up to a decision maker to decide if they are worth that salary and then agree to pay it.

What would sit more comfortably with me, would be those who have been furloughed get their wages topped up, either by the club or the owner.

It isn't the responsibility of the players to shell out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nicola1111 said:

Does anyone know if we have furloughed non-playing staff at our club, ala liverpool and Newcastle, or if we are bearing the financial burden ourselves (as we should imo)

Journalist  ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Yes. You want consistency where it suits your agenda.

Reality is, anyone can ask for any salary and it's up to a decision maker to decide if they are worth that salary and then agree to pay it.

What would sit more comfortably with me, would be those who have been furloughed get their wages topped up, either by the club or the owner.

It isn't the responsibility of the players to shell out. 

I don’t have an agenda but I’m interested to hear what you think it is?  

I agree the club should top up NPS pay and I agree it’s not up to players to pay for it, but currently there is no consistency so players on the face of it are unaffected when NPS are impacted to the tune of 20% drop in pay.  Surely that doesn’t sit right with anybody?

If the club cover the  20% drop for NPS then I don’t have an issue with players still getting 100% of their salary as it will be consistent.

Arguments suggesting players shouldn’t be impacted because they earn to much money and have big overheads are laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

When I say furlough the players, To clarify I don’t think the club should be claiming £2500 off the government per player, I think the club should pay them 80% of their salary, so they are impacted financially the same as the NPS, maybe not furlough but in the spirit of what furloughing is doing.  

I see. I expect the contractual obligations mean they can’t just do that on a whim and I expect most clubs are waiting for an FA/UEFA/FIFA ruling on it. 
I’m pretty sure that not many have gone it alone on making that call. 
There’s also the argument as made by Jonathan Walters, last week - where players contribute far more in tax to the economy on full pay, than taking a reduction, which actually leaves less in the pot by way of taxes. 

A donation of received salary, directly from players, to top up the clubs Furloughed staff, would be the simplest and most meaningful gesture - but I don’t agree that anyone should be forced, pressured or expected to make such a gesture. As nice as it would be to see. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

I see. I expect the contractual obligations mean they can’t just do that on a whim and I expect most clubs are waiting for an FA/UEFA/FIFA ruling on it. 
I’m pretty sure that not many have gone it alone on making that call. 
There’s also the argument as made by Jonathan Walters, last week - where players contribute far more in tax to the economy on full pay, than taking a reduction, which actually leaves less in the pot by way of taxes. 

A donation of received salary, directly from players, to top up the clubs Furloughed staff, would be the simplest and most meaningful gesture - but I don’t agree that anyone should be forced, pressured or expected to make such a gesture. As nice as it would be to see. 

I agree, i expect most players would be happy to do it as well, but the easiest solution is for the club to top up NPS salaries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I don’t have an agenda but I’m interested to hear what you think it is?  

I agree the club should top up NPS pay and I agree it’s not up to players to pay for it, but currently there is no consistency so players on the face of it are unaffected when NPS are impacted to the tune of 20% drop in pay.  Surely that doesn’t sit right with anybody?

If the club cover the  20% drop for NPS then I don’t have an issue with players still getting 100% of their salary as it will be consistent.

Arguments suggesting players shouldn’t be impacted because they earn to much money and have big overheads are laughable.

Your point is valid - but I think you are completely overlooking the fact that we lose millions of pounds each year..!

It’s fine for the mega rich clubs who post a huge profit each year - but most clubs outside the Premier leagues lose a fortune. The money isn’t there to subsidise the furloughed wage. 
 

A far better place to vent your ideology would be at shithouses like Weatherspoons owner - but I bet you and others like you (I don’t mean this personally) will be only too quick to go and line his pockets again once this is all over..! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I agree, i expect most players would be happy to do it as well, but the easiest solution is for the club to top up NPS salaries

But, again, the club loses millions each year. The funds aren’t there to do this. 
It would take a personal donation to do it. 
 

There are cases of staff being treated badly by employers in all of this - but BCFC and most other clubs really aren’t the ones who are doing it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Can't imagine there is anything for them to do which is why they've been furloughed.

No matches, no hospitality, no idea when they'll be open again.

Same principle should be for footballers too or at the very minimum they should be taking pay cuts (if all they are doing is light training from home).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, City18 said:

I do not know the conditions of the clubs furlough however. Several companies have but people on furlough until end of April and then told if things dont change they will lose their jobs.

Not the case within the club. If that’s your worry then don’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Players should do what any other sensible person does and make sure they prepare for when time’s are tough.  

We are always told that football is a short career, and we all know examples of players who might get one big contract but for whatever reason can’t get another and slip down the leagues.  Therefore, any player earning a considerable sum currently who doesn’t save money, have appropriate income protection or mortgage cover is an idiot quite frankly.
 

If I can’t earn what I earn (currently £60k) if I get furloughed (Still waiting time hear), because of my salary I will be considerably out of pocket each month, but I can take a mortgage break, I have savings, and I will make adjustments.  I don’t see why players are any different.

This is not about picking out footballers for earning lots of money, fair play to them, but to say they can’t be impacted financially because they earn too much money and won’t be able to pay for their massive houses and sports cars is not valid, unless the footballer in question has been reckless with their spend, in which case that’s their own fault I’m afraid, the same as it would be for me.  I earn pretty good money and that comes with a responsibility IMO.

When. I first started work I was always told if possible to keep savings of 6 months for any unplanned  emergencies.  By putting a few pounds away each month  I have been able to do this ,   I would have hoped that others have also been able to do this , particularly those who earn more than they could spend in a month. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Walsheys step over said:

At the moment Bristol sport and Ashton gate stadium staff are furloughed Bristol city fc staff are not

The majority of staff are, some are still working. Very few but some are, eg some finance workers who are sorting this furlough stuff out etc. Some heads of departments are still overseeing things. Granted these jobs are being done from their homes, but they are still working. All the departments of the business still have to run in the background, even in lockdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

Players should do what any other sensible person does and make sure they prepare for when time’s are tough.  

We are always told that football is a short career, and we all know examples of players who might get one big contract but for whatever reason can’t get another and slip down the leagues.  Therefore, any player earning a considerable sum currently who doesn’t save money, have appropriate income protection or mortgage cover is an idiot quite frankly.
 

If I can’t earn what I earn (currently £60k) if I get furloughed (Still waiting time hear), because of my salary I will be considerably out of pocket each month, but I can take a mortgage break, I have savings, and I will make adjustments.  I don’t see why players are any different.

This is not about picking out footballers for earning lots of money, fair play to them, but to say they can’t be impacted financially because they earn too much money and won’t be able to pay for their massive houses and sports cars is not valid, unless the footballer in question has been reckless with their spend, in which case that’s their own fault I’m afraid, the same as it would be for me.  I earn pretty good money and that comes with a responsibility IMO.

Going from £10k per week to £600 is a massive jump that nobody could cover for months.  Not even you! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, nicola1111 said:

That came from you just now when you said it was a mix of both furlough and some being paid fully by the club.

In that case you haven’t understood what I have said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Reality is, it is highly unlikely their basic outgoings would be met on £600 per week, so aside from putting them in the poor house, I'm not sure what it would achieve.

Unless of course, you subscribe to the school of thought that everyone should live a basic lifestyle regardless of their income.

No I do not subscribe to that at all, it was a bit tongue in cheek. See my post above that one.

37 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Yes. You want consistency where it suits your agenda.

Reality is, anyone can ask for any salary and it's up to a decision maker to decide if they are worth that salary and then agree to pay it.

What would sit more comfortably with me, would be those who have been furloughed get their wages topped up, either by the club or the owner.

It isn't the responsibility of the players to shell out. 

This is basically what I said in my post above the one you quoted.

I also get the fact many clubs are operating at a loss (and are not as wealthy as the Sags owner), but if I was Lansdown I would definitely be dipping my hand in my pocket for a few months just for the good press I would get from it. Alternatively go down the route of Branson/Martin and become more hated by many more people struggling to make ends meet. No brainer for me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RedM said:

In that case you haven’t understood what I have said. 

What did you mean exactly then? Not that some NPS are furloughed and some arent, something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Your point is valid - but I think you are completely overlooking the fact that we lose millions of pounds each year..!

It’s fine for the mega rich clubs who post a huge profit each year - but most clubs outside the Premier leagues lose a fortune. The money isn’t there to subsidise the furloughed wage. 
 

A far better place to vent your ideology would be at shithouses like Weatherspoons owner - but I bet you and others like you (I don’t mean this personally) will be only too quick to go and line his pockets again once this is all over..! 

My ideology of fairness?  Why are you being such a knob?  Just because I don’t mention all the many many other businesses doesn’t mean I don’t feel the same but this is a football forum so talking football, I will be sure to visit the Weatherspoons fan forum don’t worry

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CyderInACan said:

I find it weird that Bears have implemented wage reductions but City & Flyers have not. Or that certainly was the case a week or two ago. 

Bears pretty much enforced by the way they are funded by the Premiership, and as I understand it a mutual decision across the top league.  Contracts will be different too.

In the Flyers case we don’t know whether Gentrey Thomas (who’s returned home to Canada) is still contracted off not.  Flyers may have released him to go back home.  The financials in Basketball are tiny in comparison.

1 hour ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

I think the club should be consistent, if they want to furlough non playing staff they should also furlough players IMO.  I don’t think it’s in the spirit of things to take government moment to pay non playing staff whilst the club is continuing to pay players full pay, it’s double standards and impacting the non playing staff unjustly.  This isn’t about attacking footballers for what they earn, it’s about consistency of approach 

To furlough an employee they have to stop working.  I know it might seem crazy but I suspect that would mean they can’t train.  So for the sake of 40 pros at £612.50 per week via CJRS, you might as well continue paying them full whack to keep them in shape.  You won’t be paying appearance / win bonuses at the mo.

This is purely a financial rationale from me.  Morally my view is something different!

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

Why should we be bearing the financial burden ourselves..?

The government have put a scheme in place for all businesses effected by lack of trade and the staff that are most vulnerable as a result. 
Why should our (or any clubs) staff not use the scheme..?

The CJRS was a good idea conceptually, but poor designed and implemented....when you finally can submit your request to use it!!

A couple of points often forgotten:

- using CJRS stops clubs making staff redundant....I wouldn’t want to be made redundant in this climate, where there’s little chance of getting another job or at least at a comparable wage.

- it is still open for the club to continue to pay the employee their full wage, in effect using the CJRS as a subsidy.  Some clubs are doing just that.

Share this post


Link to post
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...