Furloughing staff at the club

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Very commendable. But wage levels mean they’ll still be earning more than our players at 100%, i should think. 
I don’t know if spain has a Furlough scheme like ours..? Would their staff have received nothing/very little without these measures..?

Not many employed people in this country are going to be left destitute, thanks to the Furlough subsidies. 

Casual, zero hours- how does that cover them? 

What about companies who have laid people off and are not using furlough. It does happen BTW.

Furlough scheme is pretty good but quite a few may still fall through the cracks.

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Bar BS3

Are you aware that DIRTY LEEDS have taken a deferral and part of the reason so that non playing and even casual staff can get paid in full. 

Granted deferral isn't a cut but that on the face of it is excellent. They were the first notable club in the UK to do so.

That's a much better comparable for us than top flight clubs here, Spain, Italy or Germany.mm 

You're defending the indefensible tbh.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Robin-hugh-blind said:

I suppose it depends on how you see a player. A person or an asset. 

 

A person;

I'm in little doubt that most players up and down the country what to help. But backing them into a corner with media jibes probably isn't to most effective way.

 

An asset;

What we call wages are a contractual comment to keep this asset, failure on the club's part to keep to that contract means this 1-10m £ asset could be lost. And I suppose it's worth paying wages of 10k to keep hold of that asset for the short term atleast. 

 

I personally think the player's should get together and do a whip round for staff affected and NHS/flw there wages should not be affected. I think Liverpool's Henderson was trying to put something like this together. 

To be clear, I'm talking about players who aren't bothered and have no intention of contributing.

If they don't wanna contribute at all, I'd windfall tax the *******.

Nice little populist boost for a Government too.

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

And this is the point that a lot have overlooked.

The reduction/misappropriation in monies spent, either under 10 years of Tory investment, or a bloated management structure sucking funds away from where they could be better spent means the NHS of yesterday isn't as well equipped or prepared as the NHS of today needs to be.

The same applies to the police force where there has been a huge reduction in front line officers.

None of this is the fault of sport.

 

Whataboutery.

[East End Old Boy]

4 hours 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? 

 

4 hours 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).

Not a fan of acronyms and not familiar with NPS, so used Google and surprised to see the definition is: Non-Penetrative Sex 

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours 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.

You're aware that part of their role will be playing on a matchday. 

I don't think merely training should get 100% of salary. 80-90%?

Might be worth looking at Barcelona, they cut/deferred salary commensurate to the fall in workload, supposedly. 70% mooted though?? 

Never would advocate that bur if unable to do a key part of the job, I don't see why 100% of wage is equitable. % of hours playing vs training I guess might be a fair formula.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

 

Not a fan of acronyms and not familiar with NPS, so used Google and surprised to see the definition is: Non-Penetrative Sex 

Stands for Non Playing Staff in this case.

[italian dave]

2 hours 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've no idea what % of players income comes this way, but presumably they aren't getting appearance bonuses, win bonuses, league position bonuses - all those things that players contracts apparently include? As I say, no idea if that equates to 20% or not...

[East End Old Boy]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Stands for Non Playing Staff in this case.

@Mr Popodopolous thank you for the clarification!

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Vincent Vega said:

Journalist  ?

While I don't think the OP a journalist, I do think that decent (Gregor and Geoff Twentyman are fine bur I don't mean that level or that scale) sports journalist for a national would find this interesting from a number of angles. 

A decent journalist wouldn't be asking leading questions though, they'd be cleverer in their info gathering IMO.

[Hunsupport]

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

You're aware that part of their role will be playing on a matchday. 

I don't think merely training should get 100% of salary. 80-90%?

Might be worth looking at Barcelona, they cut/deferred salary commensurate to the fall in workload, supposedly. 70% mooted though?? 

Never would advocate that bur if unable to do a key part of the job, I don't see why 100% of wage is equitable. % of hours playing vs training I guess might be a fair formula.

I get that You seem quite angry at the players (not only Bristol City but in general) that they don't stand up and say 'hey, i've got  a lot of money, I don't need it for let's say 3 months, give it to the cleaning lady' but I think it's much more complicated than that.

As someone here wrote they are THE assests of the clubs; it's like You have a Mercedes with full extra AND a bike  and You can only keep 1. Of course you get rid of the bike...as harsh as it sounds. The decision on the paycut will look better if it is unified.

Also they are donating (most of them for sure) they just don't advertise it. F.e. in Hungary the international squad as a whole ( inc. Nagy as well) donated 80.000 GBP for the hospitals and they also donated per person. Some of it we know, some doing it anonimously. I think this stands for the Bristol City squad as well, they all seem like they care and not the knobhead types like some of the elite guys...

 

 

[Steve Watts]

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

I agree with you, generally - but I don’t think it is/was possible to prepare for such unprecedented levels of disruption. 
 

Sadly though, this very situation was tested for in a simulation 5 years ago and the system failed hugely.  Nothing was done to rectify the situation and as others have pointed out, the services were bloated with middle management and front line cuts as opposed to strengthening those areas.  So we certainly could have been much better prepared for it.

4 hours 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.

There is nothing in any law at all that would prevent someone from doing exercise, which is essentially what this would be doing.

[Bar BS3]

52 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Casual, zero hours- how does that cover them? 

What about companies who have laid people off and are not using furlough. It does happen BTW.

Furlough scheme is pretty good but quite a few may still fall through the cracks.

Yes I agree. I don’t think zero hours contracts should be legal anyway, but that’s a different issue. 
The problem with working for a zero hours contract is exactly this (even if it is extreme) at any time, regardless of circumstances, they could be laid off. It just so happens that there is now a reason to do so. 
Regardless of contracts, people who have been on payroll can be made Furlough. 
Now, any business that is refusing to make people on their payroll Furlough.... they are the scum..! There is literally NO reason not to be doing this and anyone doing so should be named, shamed and boycotted when things return to normal, imo. 

[RedM]

43 minutes ago, East End Old Boy said:

 

Not a fan of acronyms and not familiar with NPS, so used Google and surprised to see the definition is: Non-Penetrative Sex 

I only used that acronym as I quoted a person who did. I took it to mean Non Playing Staff...I hope I am right! 

[Bar BS3]

2 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Sadly though, this very situation was tested for in a simulation 5 years ago and the system failed hugely.  Nothing was done to rectify the situation and as others have pointed out, the services were bloated with middle management and front line cuts as opposed to strengthening those areas.  So we certainly could have been much better prepared for it.

There is nothing in any law at all that would prevent someone from doing exercise, which is essentially what this would be doing.

Yes it was. But knowing that you couldn’t cope with a hypothetical situation, doesn’t really help you prepare for the unknown - or make it viable to keep thousands or millions of pieces of equipment stored away, incase. Especially not knowing if it’s what’s actually going to be needed, when/if (unlikely) something comes around. 
For instance - what if the pandemic caused people’s legs to drop off..? What if it caused sudden heart failure..? What if it made people go blind..?
What good would 10’s thousands of ventilators be then..? 

You simply can’t legislate for the unknown. Although it’s very easy to call fault on it with hindsight. 

[RedM]

10 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

 

There is nothing in any law at all that would prevent someone from doing exercise, which is essentially what this would be doing.

No, but when the exercise is in form of an instruction from your employer, and you are being paid whilst doing it, surely that is classed as work.

[Bar BS3]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Bar BS3

Are you aware that DIRTY LEEDS have taken a deferral and part of the reason so that non playing and even casual staff can get paid in full. 

Granted deferral isn't a cut but that on the face of it is excellent. They were the first notable club in the UK to do so.

That's a much better comparable for us than top flight clubs here, Spain, Italy or Germany.mm 

You're defending the indefensible tbh.

Yes, that is very good. You’ll notice that the list of non-top flight clubs to do similar is currently very small though. And with the likely premier league riches on their horizon, probably made it a far easier decision than it might be for most other clubs. 

[RedM]

2 hours ago, nicola1111 said:

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

I won’t be explaining this any further. I have said all that I need to say on this, but your interest intrigues me.

If Bristol Sport want to be clear on what they are doing with their staff I’m sure they will make it known. In my opinion regarding Non Playing Staff they have been fairer than most employers I’ve knowledge about, as I’ve previously stated. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, Hunsupport said:

I get that You seem quite angry at the players (not only Bristol City but in general) that they don't stand up and say 'hey, i've got  a lot of money, I don't need it for let's say 3 months, give it to the cleaning lady' but I think it's much more complicated than that.

As someone here wrote they are THE assests of the clubs; it's like You have a Mercedes with full extra AND a bike  and You can only keep 1. Of course you get rid of the bike...as harsh as it sounds. The decision on the paycut will look better if it is unified.

Also they are donating (most of them for sure) they just don't advertise it. F.e. in Hungary the international squad as a whole ( inc. Nagy as well) donated 80.000 GBP for the hospitals and they also donated per person. Some of it we know, some doing it anonimously. I think this stands for the Bristol City squad as well, they all seem like they care and not the knobhead types like some of the elite guys...

 

 

Fair response.

They are an asset but I'd like to think our players are a bit better. Of course I understand the economic argument and that you cannot risk losing a multi million pound asset for nothing. 

That's good to hear. I agree, they don't ultimately in the cold light of day strike me as knobheads unlike some elite players.

I think Leeds players albeit it's a deferral have gone that extra mile though. Deferral so that non playing staff and zero hours/matchday get paid in full. They've set a gold standard, possibly Brentford as well.

Don't really see it as right that Government should be subsidising lower paid while top paid SEEMINGLY and as far as we know on full whack, for merely training and conditioning. 10-20% cut or deferral would seem quite fair to me.

[Big C]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

@Bar BS3

Are you aware that DIRTY LEEDS have taken a deferral and part of the reason so that non playing and even casual staff can get paid in full. 

Granted deferral isn't a cut but that on the face of it is excellent. They were the first notable club in the UK to do so.

That's a much better comparable for us than top flight clubs here, Spain, Italy or Germany.mm 

You're defending the indefensible tbh.

What's the furlough situation in Spain, Italy and Germany?

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, RedM said:

No, but when the exercise is in form of an instruction from your employer, and you are being paid whilst doing it, surely that is classed as work.

Not 100% however IMO.

4 minutes ago, Big C said:

What's the furlough situation in Spain, Italy and Germany?

German players have been taking cuts or deferrals. Barcelona and Atletico 70% IIRC. Juventus 30%.

All pretty piecemeal though. Italy appears to be the closest to here in that respect.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, RedM said:

I won’t be explaining this any further. I have said all that I need to say on this, but your interest intrigues me.

If Bristol Sport want to be clear on what they are doing with their staff I’m sure they will make it known. In my opinion regarding Non Playing Staff they have been fairer than most employers I’ve knowledge about, as I’ve previously stated. 

Can't or don't want to be see to speak for Nicola but maybe they work for the club or have relatives who do or close friends in whatever capacity.

[RedM]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not 100% however IMO.

I don’t disagree with that. But I’m just trying to explain that under their terms and conditions of being furloughed they can’t be paid to do exercise set for them by an employer as it’s a task, therefore work.

[bh_red]

3 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

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. 

that's a complete top out excuse...

We lose millions each year and yet still have no issues with the club spending millions and millions on player transfers?

I think it's dreadful that a club with millions of turnover is going to the government for handouts (basically our taxes) to cover salaries of what is frankly a tiny overall percentage of the wage bill, equally, those members of staff are now expected to suddenly live on 80% of their salaries.

Personally, Massively disappointed that the club haven't just covered it for the next few months, showed loyalty to the staff involved when times are tough.

 

[winterbournered]

Personally, it doesn’t sit comfortably with me using tax payers money, when in all likelihood we’ll sign a player for for between 5-10 million in the summer. 
It’s not like the club will go under and there is still a chance games will played. 

[nicola1111]

1 hour ago, East End Old Boy said:

@Mr Popodopolous thank you for the clarification!

Mr popodopolous is infact incorrect, and you were spot on with your google search.

[RedM]

6 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)

@Mr Popodopolous, perhaps ‘she’ is a friend or relative, but if so would know the arrangements as it’s been two weeks or so now and wouldn’t need to ask the above?

Something doesn’t sit comfortable with me on this.

[Bar BS3]

10 minutes ago, bh_red said:

that's a complete top out excuse...

We lose millions each year and yet still have no issues with the club spending millions and millions on player transfers?

I think it's dreadful that a club with millions of turnover is going to the government for handouts (basically our taxes) to cover salaries of what is frankly a tiny overall percentage of the wage bill, equally, those members of staff are now expected to suddenly live on 80% of their salaries.

Personally, Massively disappointed that the club haven't just covered it for the next few months, showed loyalty to the staff involved when times are tough.

 

The club (or any business) aren’t going to the government for “handouts” it’s a government offering, in exceptional times, to ensure employments are retained and that people aren’t laid off. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

The club (or any business) aren’t going to the government for “handouts” it’s a government offering, in exceptional times, to ensure employments are retained and that people aren’t laid off. 

Just a personal view but higher paid staff (not just with us or football but in general) should take a hit.

Then it'd be easier to justify furlough IMO. Otherwise what's so different about eg continuing to pay dividends or bonuses while still furloughing average and lower paid earners?

[nicola1111]

7 minutes ago, RedM said:

@Mr Popodopolous, perhaps ‘she’ is a friend or relative, but if so would know the arrangements as it’s been two weeks or so now and wouldn’t need to ask the above?

Something doesn’t sit comfortable with me on this.

I'm just curious because it's been in the media recently. Especially as it is negatively affecting clubs who have chosen to furlough staff and getting good press for those that have chosen not to.

What ulterior motives do you possibly think I could have for asking this question? I could have asked it on twitter, but then the response would have been visible to a wider outside audience and it may have looked bad for my club.

If you are still not sitting comfortably may I suggest a cushion? Haemorrhoid or otherwise.