Jump to content
IGNORED

Furloughing staff at the club


nicola1111

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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 ?

So you're a NAFOA then? :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bar BS3 said:

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. 

You can and should legislate for the unknown, through proper Risk Governance.  I work in Internal Audit and have worked with many businesses on their Business Continuity Plans and Disaster Recovery plans.  The trick is not to try and they of every possible thing that could happen, but of the impacts these things happening have on your business, and looking at these.  Generally the main impact to a business is staff not being able to do their day job, and the most common reasons are because they can’t get to work, systems are broken, or work place is off limits.  You then have controls to mitigate these things I.e. WFH.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of the things people may have missed in this thread are:

  • Furlough pay is only 80% of someone's wages up to £2500 a month.
  • When you furlough people you are temporarily serving notice of redundancy with the government covering a % of their wages. You can only do that if 
    • there is nothing for them to do for the next few months (hence why some NPS have not been furloughed if they do have work to do
    • you are okay with the potential consequences of that temporary redundancy. Any player who is furloughed would have a reasonable chance of arguing their contract has been invalidated and moving to another club on a free if they choose to do so.
  • Job contracts matter. You can furlough someone you would otherwise have to make redundant and give them stability but you can't turn around and make your staff take a pay cut. You can suggest it and ask them to agree to it but ultimately we have a contract with the players and have to abide by it. Players could be encouraged to voluntarily forego some of their wages but the club cannot impose it if there is no room in the contract to do so.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, winterbournered said:

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. 

Where have you seen it said BCFC staff have been furloughed? AG staff have been but its a separate company which gets its income through hospitality/events/concessions, currently there are none. If BCFC tried giving money to AG to pay staff I imagine it could make for interesting consequences when it comes to audits, if its a deferral the players need to be paid later so a larger wage bill etc, BCFC will have budgeted for their outgoings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have furloughed ANY staff it’s an absolute disgrace. this money is coming from taxpayers inputs and as such our illustrious leader while currently contributing nothing as a tax exile is claiming off an already stretched pot. i would but him alongside the spurs and liverpool owners. no shame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

Yes, those 2 points are exactly right. 
The second one of topping up the remaining 20% is correct - but is is feasible with a business that losses millions of pounds and has had its own income streams quashed..?  

That’s down to financial planning....easy for me to say, but should clubs run so close to the allowed levels of losses, or be more contingent?  I know it’s all hindsight, but perhaps it will be a kick up the arse!

2 hours 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. 
It’s easy to level blame and short comings, now. 
But people should have moaned if funds were spent on 10’s thousands of unneeded ventilators and protective wear, on the off chance that one day we faced a pandemic that was like nothing we’d even come close to seeing in the modern world before and is more akin to some far fetched Hollywood apocalyptic movie..! 
 

 

I agree you can’t plan to such a level, but we were miles away from being prepared.  The pandemic scenario played out in 2016, highlighted a serious lack of ventilators.  It appears that was ignored totally.  Even putting some in reserves would’ve better than none.  More realistic would’ve been to get prepared in January, when Hancock told the house we were more than prepared.  But did we start buying / increase manufacturing of ventilators and PPEs?  Nope.  But I’m drifting into a political debate now, so I’ll stop.

2 hours 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.

Over the past days I’ve been trying to get to a point where I can see the best option, and I’m coming round to the point where I think a first step of players deferring (not cutting) their wages so that other club employees can be paid is the right thing to do.

That initial step is only gonna buy time, because there comes a point when clubs are not gonna want to continue paying non playing staff for doing nothing.  At that stage perhaps CJRS comes into effect to avoid redundancies.  At the moment, some clubs are taking the piss.  Leeds have set a good example here.  And it buys time to see what the next stage is when.

1 hour 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.

Yep, reading some stuff of the contractor forum i read, it is clear that trivial things may be classed as “work”, and I cannot imagine HMRC accepting furloughing of a professional sportsman keeping fit.  They aren’t just keeping fit like you or I, they are professionally conditioning themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

I get your point but what player doesn't want to help? Or isn't bothered about people dieing 

Players do an awful lot in the community these days. Even the ones we hate most. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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..?

Because the football club has sufficient money to support their staff during this time. We will all pay for this in the next 10+ years through increased taxes etc.

Furlough in my opinion should be used to keep small businesses afloat not for big businesses to offload their payroll onto the government as to keep their shareholders happy. A decision which will later cost the whole country 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
52 minutes ago, Tinmans Love Child said:

You can and should legislate for the unknown, through proper Risk Governance.  I work in Internal Audit and have worked with many businesses on their Business Continuity Plans and Disaster Recovery plans.  The trick is not to try and they of every possible thing that could happen, but of the impacts these things happening have on your business, and looking at these.  Generally the main impact to a business is staff not being able to do their day job, and the most common reasons are because they can’t get to work, systems are broken, or work place is off limits.  You then have controls to mitigate these things I.e. WFH.  

There will always be a financial constraint to that risk assessment and mitigation, I have no idea what the experts opinions on the likelihood of a world wide pandemic with such impact, but unless their unanimous opinion was that we we were due one imminently, no government would have geared up for it.  We are far from alone in floundering to deal with the consequences of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, City18 said:

Because the football club has sufficient money to support their staff during this time. We will all pay for this in the next 10+ years through increased taxes etc.

Furlough in my opinion should be used to keep small businesses afloat not for big businesses to offload their payroll onto the government as to keep their shareholders happy. A decision which will later cost the whole country 

Well, technically the football club doesn't have the money. It relies on investment from SL.

And as for paying back all this money being dished out at the moment for the foreseeable, yes. That will happen. But the players will likely be amongst the highest rate tax payers and contributing their fair share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, City18 said:

Because the football club has sufficient money to support their staff during this time. We will all pay for this in the next 10+ years through increased taxes etc.

Furlough in my opinion should be used to keep small businesses afloat not for big businesses to offload their payroll onto the government as to keep their shareholders happy. A decision which will later cost the whole country 

 

2 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Well, technically the football club doesn't have the money. It relies on investment from SL.

And as for paying back all this money being dished out at the moment for the foreseeable, yes. That will happen. But the players will likely be amongst the highest rate tax payers and contributing their fair share.

You both give both sides to the argument.

I’m sure there are some clubs out there thinking that if they’re gonna pay increased taxes in the future, they might as well have some of the ‘benefits’ now.  Without thinking it through, could there be two tier corporate taxation in the future based on recouping the benefit?  I don’t know whether that’s a good idea or not.

In summary, it’s complicated. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

There will always be a financial constraint to that risk assessment and mitigation, I have no idea what the experts opinions on the likelihood of a world wide pandemic with such impact, but unless their unanimous opinion was that we we were due one imminently, no government would have geared up for it.  We are far from alone in floundering to deal with the consequences of this.

They did though, see South Korea, the point of doing the risk governance is identifying gaps, including financial ones.  Our government will have done risk governance to some degree, and there are various articles on risk assessments done in last few years on pandemics 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bar BS3 said:

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. 

I think we're cross purposes on companies and furlough.

Say Person X laid off a few days before furlough measures announced. Company might decide that existing staff okay perhaps but those laid off in the prior few days, just can't be justified from a cash flow POV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Robin-hugh-blind said:

I get your point but what player doesn't want to help? Or isn't bothered about people dieing 

Players do an awful lot in the community these days. Even the ones we hate most. 

 

 

 

 

Not so much not bothered about dying, more those that feel they're above taking a paycut. 

Our private health spokesman in chief sums up the attitude I'm on about halfway up Page 2. 

A poster fwiw that I'd expect little better from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think some of the things people may have missed in this thread are:

  • Furlough pay is only 80% of someone's wages up to £2500 a month.
  • When you furlough people you are temporarily serving notice of redundancy with the government covering a % of their wages. You can only do that if 
    • there is nothing for them to do for the next few months (hence why some NPS have not been furloughed if they do have work to do
    • you are okay with the potential consequences of that temporary redundancy. Any player who is furloughed would have a reasonable chance of arguing their contract has been invalidated and moving to another club on a free if they choose to do so.
  • Job contracts matter. You can furlough someone you would otherwise have to make redundant and give them stability but you can't turn around and make your staff take a pay cut. You can suggest it and ask them to agree to it but ultimately we have a contract with the players and have to abide by it. Players could be encouraged to voluntarily forego some of their wages but the club cannot impose it if there is no room in the contract to do so.

 

For football players contracts perhaps, 'real world' I'm not so sure?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Well, technically the football club doesn't have the money. It relies on investment from SL.

And as for paying back all this money being dished out at the moment for the foreseeable, yes. That will happen. But the players will likely be amongst the highest rate tax payers and contributing their fair share.

Tax exile lest we forget.

Now I'm not especially fussed about that as he's created a lot of good jobs, paid a lot of tax and is still investing in us, in Bristol Sport- more jobs, using local services- and those good jobs he's created over the years have paid a lot of tax, he's basically retired or partially retired now BUT that's a good story- in fact our one due to the added dimensions of Bristol Sport, tax exile etc, this would be quite a good story or case study for national football/sports journos to look at.

I'm ******* tempted to see if anyone is interested in the story or if there's nothing in it. I don't mean Gregor or Geoff Twentyman either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RedM said:

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.

My point was nobody employed by Bristol City fc have been furloughed only the other parts of th business 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

 

For football players contracts perhaps, 'real world' I'm not so sure?

Absolutely. The real world is different for the simple reason that so many of us have jobs that are under threat due to this pandemic, are desperate to keep hold of those jobs to keep money coming in and are in a job market where we know nobody is hiring so we don't have any option to go anywhere else and we know there are lots of people out of work so our employers have options and we do not.

Therefore, if our companies impose furloughs on us then, although it is in affect temporary redundancy, we'd gratefully accept the 80% of wages (even more so if if our employer was topping up the rest) and willingly go back to our jobs at the end. And, if we were told we had to take a pay cut to keep our jobs for the next few months, we'd likely accept that too.

Footballers are different. If their clubs invalidate their contracts by offering pay cuts or suspending their pay then, especially if they are talented, they will know they have other options and that in a few months they can move somewhere that pays more on a free transfer. Hence why clubs don't dare furlough their players or insist on pay cuts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Absolutely. The real world is different for the simple reason that so many of us have jobs that are under threat due to this pandemic, are desperate to keep hold of those jobs to keep money coming in and are in a job market where we know nobody is hiring so we don't have any option to go anywhere else and we know there are lots of people out of work so our employers have options and we do not.

Therefore, if our companies impose furloughs on us then, although it is in affect temporary redundancy, we'd gratefully accept the 80% of wages (even more so if if our employer was topping up the rest) and willingly go back to our jobs at the end. And, if we were told we had to take a pay cut to keep our jobs for the next few months, we'd likely accept that too.

Footballers are different. If their clubs invalidate their contracts by offering pay cuts or suspending their pay then, especially if they are talented, they will know they have other options and that in a few months they can move somewhere that pays more on a free transfer. Hence why clubs don't dare furlough their players. 

Agreed ultimately.,

All credit to those who have deferred etc.

Spanish law appears to differ if we look at Barcelona, possibly some in other bits of Europe might as well. Could be local to Catalan law but there is some emergency law there that allows this and doesn't exempt football in the same way?

The case at this club, though not one of the elite- good national sports journo, good story for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Integrity- you either have it or you don't.

Leeds players do and Brentford too, possibly Birmingham as well...most don't.

I don't give Leeds too much credit, a deferral is not a cut (and who knows if that then comes with interest or a bonus??)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I don't give Leeds too much credit, a deferral is not a cut (and who knows if that then comes with interest or a bonus??)

For now then, bit of credit- non playing staff getting paid in full when they otherwise wouldn't, it is a positive.

More than I'd give our lot anyway- it's a pretty bare cupboard granted, two bald men over a comb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Not so much not bothered about dying, more those that feel they're above taking a paycut. 

Our private health spokesman in chief sums up the attitude I'm on about halfway up Page 2. 

A poster fwiw that I'd expect little better from.

I see our resident ‘expert in nothing, fool in all things’ is on his one man moral crusade again.

I’ve given you some pretty good advice a week or so ago - to lay back and take it easy for a while. You’re getting your knickers in a twist over quite literally EVERYTHING at the moment. Chill Winston.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Harry said:

I see our resident ‘expert in nothing, fool in all things’ is on his one man moral crusade again.

I’ve given you some pretty good advice a week or so ago - to lay back and take it easy for a while. You’re getting your knickers in a twist over quite literally EVERYTHING at the moment. Chill Winston.  

Dunno why you're so opposed to players taking a hit at a time they aren't playing but each to their own.

Moral crusade...well maybe on occasion- but at least some of us have said ethics- have an accurate moral compass. Well done to Leeds, and Brentford and maybe Birmingham. That is all. At this level I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, City18 said:

Because the football club has sufficient money to support their staff during this time. We will all pay for this in the next 10+ years through increased taxes etc.

Furlough in my opinion should be used to keep small businesses afloat not for big businesses to offload their payroll onto the government as to keep their shareholders happy. A decision which will later cost the whole country 

But Furlough is to protect individuals jobs, not to protect businesses. 
Without it, there’d have been millions of people laid off/made redundant within days. 
Furlough protects people. Obviously helps businesses too, buts main purpose is to safeguard employment. 
Businesses aren’t doing anything wrong in using the scheme. Most need too. Especially ones losing millions of pounds a year..! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

But Furlough is to protect individuals jobs, not to protect businesses. 
Without it, there’d have been millions of people laid off/made redundant within days. 
Furlough protects people. Obviously helps businesses too, buts main purpose is to safeguard employment. 
Businesses aren’t doing anything wrong in using the scheme. Most need too. Especially ones losing millions of pounds a year..! 

What's your justification then for players getting paid in full when they are unable to do their full job?

Training + Matches=Full wage.

Training + No Matches= What % split do you think the two should be? Training=X and Matches=Y. Not a dig btw, but genuinely interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will please a few on here though it links more widely to the salary cap debate.

Quote

Salary cap proposal leads to 'howls of derision'

Sources have disclosed there were 'howls of derision' at a recent EFL meeting to discuss financial measures to keep clubs alive during the coronavirus crisis when one unnamed executive suggested a Championship-wide salary cap of £6,000 a week.

Such a move would be of little or no assistance to the likes of Millwall and Luton, whose wage bills are dwarfed by the bigger spenders in the league. Insiders say that point was made very strongly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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