Furloughing staff at the club

[Bristol Rob]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

Because their 'full pay' would include an appearance fee and result based bonuses.

But we have been through all of this before and you refuse to accept valid points.

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

Because their 'full pay' would include an appearance fee and result based bonuses.

But we have been through all of this before and you refuse to accept valid points.

Barcelona saw things differently.

Granted I don't know how Spanish/Catalan law differs but one of the reasons for the cut/deferral/the hit being taken was that they were no longer actively playing.

[Harry]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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 but at least some of us have said ethics.

I’m not against it. But it’s their own personal choice, not one that ought to be forced upon them by the virtue-signalling halo’s. 
What I am totally against is furloughing the players, as some have suggested. My stance on that is why should the government pay Bristol City’s footballers £2.5k per month when they are not in any situation of destitution or genuine hardship. 

Same as any business. If they can afford to keep operating and to pay their staff, they should. If Bristol City FC feel they are in a position to be able to continue to pay their staff full pay, then why shouldn’t they? 
As far as I’m aware, no non-playing employees of Bristol City FC have had any wage cuts. If the club feel they can continue as normal then why should they change? 
 

Of course, there will be some clubs out there who can’t afford to continue to pay their employees and they need to make their own necessary financial arrangements. But why should ANY company who can afford to continue to pay their staff start claiming from the government. 
 

I just don’t understand the desire by many people to pigeon-hole footballers just because they earn good money. I don’t see a single footballer in the top 2,000 people in the U.K.  Why are footballers an exception? 
 

For what it’s worth, and you’ll note I have previous in posting this, I hope that football has a wake up call re it’s finances after this is all over. I’d like to see clubs return to paying wages akin to their turnover. But right now, that’s not the situation, and I see no reason why a company which can afford to pay its employees shouldn’t continue to do so. 
 

Footballers aren’t the enemy of the people. They are people who earn good money, as do lots of other people in this country. Unless you want to go the route of full communism then there will always be those who have more and those who have less. Just because someone has more, it doesn’t mean they are an enemy to society - it perhaps means that they live in a meritocracy where those who have a given talent which brings joy to millions are rewarded with higher earnings than those who don’t. I’ve got no problem with people earning more than me if they deserve it - whether through talent, ability, skill, perseverance, hard work, sacrifice or intelligence. 
 

[Bar BS3]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

So should injured players not be paid usually..?

Players don’t qualify for Fulrlough, so it’s unrelated to that discussion. 
 

Should players receive full pay...? I don’t know. It’s not their fault, so should they not..? I guess it depends on the clubs financial state and the contractual obligation. 
I think the interesting issue will be for those who are out of contract in the summer, for example. 
Should players be paid now, then leave in June, having not been available for games, if they don’t re-start until August..? I’d say no - but I haven’t read anything that covers this potential issue, yet. 

[Bar BS3]

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Because their 'full pay' would include an appearance fee and result based bonuses.

But we have been through all of this before and you refuse to accept valid points.

Yes, good point. 
Players will get a basic wage. A “retainer” if you like. I’d think that a fair percentage of their money comes with appearance fees, goal bonuses etc. Which they won’t be getting. 

[Bar BS3]

6 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Yes, good point. 
Players will get a basic wage. A “retainer” if you like. I’d think that a fair percentage of their money comes with appearance fees, goal bonuses etc. Which they won’t be getting. 

Why the confusion @Mr Popodopolous..?

Players won’t be getting their full potential earnings, because the games aren’t there for them to earn it. 
Why is that point of view confusing..? 
 

EDIT - apologies - that’s not the “confused” emoji. 
However you seem to disagree with fact. Not my opinion, but fact..?! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

I’m not against it. But it’s their own personal choice, not one that ought to be forced upon them by the signal-virtuing halo’s. 
What I am totally against is furloughing the players, as some have suggested. My stance on that is why should the government pay Bristol City’s footballers £2.5k per month when they are not in any situation of destitution or genuine hardship. 

Same as any business. If they can afford to keep operating and to pay their staff, they should. If Bristol City FC feel they are in a position to be able to continue to pay their staff full pay, then why shouldn’t they? 
As far as I’m aware, no non-playing employees of Bristol City FC have had any wage cuts. If the club feel they can continue as normal then why should they change? 
 

Of course, there will be some clubs out there who can’t afford to continue to pay their employees and they need to make their own necessary financial arrangements. But why should ANY company who can afford to continue to pay their staff start claiming from the government. 
 

I just don’t understand the desire by many people to pigeon-hole footballers just because they earn good money. I don’t see a single footballer in the top 2,000 people in the U.K.  Why are footballers an exception? 
 

For what it’s worth, and you’ll note I have previous in posting this, I hope that football has a wake up call re it’s finances after this is all over. I’d like to see clubs return to paying wages akin to their turnover. But right now, that’s not the situation, and I see no reason why a company which can afford to pay its employees shouldn’t continue to do so. 
 

Footballers aren’t the enemy of the people. They are people who earn good money, as do lots of other people in this country. Unless you want to go the route of full communism then there will always be those who have more and those who have less. Just because someone has more, it doesn’t mean they are an enemy to society - it perhaps means that they live in a meritocracy where those who have a given talent which brings joy to millions are rewarded with higher earnings than those who don’t. I’ve got no problem with people earning more than me if they deserve it - whether through talent, ability, skill, perseverance, hard work, sacrifice or intelligence. 
 

Some players have character...the right DNA. Most do not...

Agreed, not a chance that the Government should pay footballers wages. 

The thread title is called "Furloughing staff at the club" so I'd be surprised if nobody has taken a hit. It's all speculation though isn't it.

I quite agree- and the same goes for football clubs if players being paid in full. Same goes for any company in that position- it should ONLY be for those who need it.

Plenty of other wealthy who could be helping for sure.

Yes agreed. At this level especially it's quite acute, think saw a stat of 106% of turnover on wages alone, absolutely mental, that's an average btw- but my position is that if they can afford to pay the players- by far the biggest % of wages, then they certainly for now can afford to pay in full the non playing staff.

Don't think anyone would like communism and neither would I, I suppose if players generate a lot of revenue it's only right they're fairly paid- but I dunno- great sport tbh and I mean really great sport, lot about the business itself I'm not so keen on.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/04/05/football-clubs-should-thinking-carefully-next-steps/

Never thought I'd agree with so many Tories but crazy times like these...

[Lrrr]

32 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

So if a club can afford to keep paying NPS and paying players their full basic wage they shouldn't do so?

[Harry]

29 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Moral crusade...well maybe on occasion- but at least some of us have said ethics- have an accurate moral compass.

Nice dig. I assume you are suggesting that I have no ethics because I work in the private medical industry. 
Get a bloody grip of yourself man. You sound like a bitter & twisted curmudgeon who feels like the world owes him something. 

You are highly active on so many disagreements on this forum because you come across as thinking you are an expert in everything - perhaps you need to looks a little closer to home as to your own ethics. Be a better guy and quit the fake crusade against everything. You ain’t gonna change the world, luv. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, hodge said:

So if a club can afford to keep paying NPS and paying players their full basic wage they shouldn't do so?

Eh?

[Bar BS3]

6 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Yes, good point. 
Players will get a basic wage. A “retainer” if you like. I’d think that a fair percentage of their money comes with appearance fees, goal bonuses etc. Which they won’t be getting. 

Why the confusion @Mr Popodopolous..?

Players won’t be getting their full potential earnings, because the games aren’t there for them to earn it. 
Why is that point of view confusing..? 

[Lrrr]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Eh?

You congratulate Leeds, Birmingham and Brentford for deferrals/cuts or what not, but what about clubs who've made no change to player wages because they can afford to keep paying their NPS and the players basic wage because they've budgeted for it? There would be no need to ask the players to take a cut in this scenario.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

Nice dig. I assume you are suggesting that I have no ethics because I work in the private medical industry. 
Get a bloody grip of yourself man. You sound like a bitter & twisted curmudgeon who feels like the world owes him something. 

You are highly active on so many disagreements on this forum because you come across as thinking you are an expert in everything - perhaps you need to looks a little closer to home as to your own ethics. Be a better guy and quit the fake crusade against everything. You ain’t gonna change the world, luv. 

Think it's a questionable industry but not gonna try and get into that.

Unsure what you mean by this. I know my own ethics, quite sure of that.

Never said I would- a YouGov poll had 95% of those polled thinking players should take a cut. 2/3 thought it should've been big. Interested in public opinion on this matter.

4 minutes ago, hodge said:

You congratulate Leeds, Birmingham and Brentford for deferrals/cuts or what not, but what about clubs who've made no change to player wages because they can afford to keep paying their NPS and the players basic wage because they've budgeted for it? There would be no need to ask the players to take a cut in this scenario.

Except they're furloughing staff so it's not so simple as well you know.

We're furloughing NPS, but allowing players full whack. So are Derby, Sheffield Wednesday- possibly Mllwall too?

[Bar BS3]

Lots of people seem to think that football clubs, ours, in this instance, can afford to pay people despite having little/no income at present. 
How exactly do they think wages will be/should be funded when we’ve got no Matchday revenue and no commercial revenue coming in..?! 
 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Lots of people seem to think that football clubs, ours, in this instance, can afford to pay people despite having little/no income at present. 
How exactly do they think wages will be/should be funded when we’ve got no Matchday revenue and no commercial revenue coming in..?! 
 

 

Yet the biggest cost of all is an exception to that.

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some players have character...the right DNA. Most do not...

 

Please show your workings and/or evidence for this statement of fact.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Please show your workings and/or evidence for this statement of fact.

Well it's all opinion.

In my opinion then. Any players who took a hit have it- those who haven't, don't. Certainly those who are decent earners.

[Lrrr]

6 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We're furloughing NPS, but allowing players full whack

Again..... AG has furloughed staff not BCFC, AG is a hospitality business and not funded by BCFC

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, hodge said:

Again..... AG has furloughed staff not BCFC, AG is a hospitality business and not funded by BCFC

Interesting arrangement.

Given said staff work at AG on a matchday, however- it's all a bit messy.

Took a quick look at the AGL accounts earlier and it is now directly controlled/owned by the Lansdowns as opposed to Bristol City FC or Bristol City Holdings

It's pretty funny though- @Phileas Fogg was of the opinion a few weeks ago on another thread that casual staff would get topped up or looked after during these times. Errr- no.

Excellent material for a journo though, convinced of that.

[frenchred]

9 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Lots of people seem to think that football clubs, ours, in this instance, can afford to pay people despite having little/no income at present. 
How exactly do they think wages will be/should be funded when we’ve got no Matchday revenue and no commercial revenue coming in..?! 
 

 

Use the money sir Steve should be paying in tax?

[frenchred]

5 minutes ago, hodge said:

Again..... AG has furloughed staff not BCFC, AG is a hospitality business and not funded by BCFC

At the end of the day it's a big pie that they are a slice of, it's just another tax dodge

[Maesknoll Red]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well it's all opinion.

In my opinion then. Any players who took a hit have it- those who haven't, don't.

Without knowing what any player (from any club) has done privately, by way of charitable act, your judgement is harsh.

I personally think football has got itself in a mess and maybe this will see some sanity come back to player wages, back to a level that the clubs can actually afford with selling their grounds and whatever other schemes they come up with.  But until that happens, I’m not convinced they should have their hand forced, what about those players out of contract at season end, if this goes on and there are cutbacks, they may not get a new club, their next contract maybe at a much reduced wage.

[Bar BS3]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Well it's all opinion.

In my opinion then. Any players who took a hit have it- those who haven't, don't. Certainly those who are decent earners.

Really..? I think that’s harsh. 
Can we ask what your current vocation is and what your current situation is with work..? 
 

Personally, I’ve reduced my hours and income accordingly. Our income has been reduced to next to nothing and myself and 5 others  need the furlough subsidy in order to get paid and keep our jobs and keep the company from going bust. 
Nobody’s bailing us out, other than the government. 

[Davefevs]

34 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

 

28 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Because their 'full pay' would include an appearance fee and result based bonuses.

But we have been through all of this before and you refuse to accept valid points.

Without knowing the detail of their contracts we don’t know whether Player A is paid significantly different whether they play / play and win or not.

Years ago at Liverpool, a player injured during a game received win bonuses for all the games they missed whilst injured.  Some players could be on a fairly simplistic basic salary with very little incentive based bonuses.

[Bar BS3]

4 minutes ago, frenchred said:

Use the money sir Steve should be paying in tax?

I’m pretty sure that SL pays all the tax that he’s obliged too AND invests massively in the south Bristol economy, providing many jobs and improved infrastructure. 

Don't confuse your bitterness and jealousy with him not paying his way..! 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Without knowing what any player (from any club) has done privately, by way of charitable act, your judgement is harsh.

I personally think football has got itself in a mess and maybe this will see some sanity come back to player wages, back to a level that the clubs can actually afford with selling their grounds and whatever other schemes they come up with.  But until that happens, I’m not convinced they should have their hand forced, what about those players out of contract at season end, if this goes in and their are cutbacks, they may not get a new club, their next contract maybe at a much reduced wage.

Perhaps it's harsh but I in general do hold a view that those who can take a bigger hit should be the first to do so.

As in players first, then staff- then if furlough needed then you approach. Paying highly remunerated players in full and by full I mean basic whack, while cutting staff wages feels a bit wrong.

10 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Really..? I think that’s harsh. 
Can we ask what your current vocation is and what your current situation is with work..? 
 

Personally, I’ve reduced my hours and income accordingly. Our income has been reduced to next to nothing and myself and 5 others  need the furlough subsidy in order to get paid and keep our jobs and keep the company from going bust. 
Nobody’s bailing us out, other than the government. 

Perhaps it's harsh. I do think these are pretty desperate and unprecedented times however- it's a bit emotive rather than factual but I do credit those players who have done it in any case. More a case of extra credit to those who have taken a hit then.

Without going into detail, certainly worse than it was pre all of this! No bailout came quickly enough and the other is uncertain so a significant hit.

Genuine q @Bar BS3 on the tax point, what % would go from Guernsey to the UK Exchequer? I'm not sure it's any but happy to be corrected- did he move to avoid tax or merely reduce it? I'm not suggesting he is flouting his obligations btw in case you or anyone get the wrong idea.

[Bar BS3]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Perhaps it's harsh but I in general do hold a view that those who can take a bigger hit should be the first to do so.

Perhaps it's harsh. I do think these are pretty desperate and unprecedented times however- it's a bit emotive rather than factual but I do credit those players who have done it in any case.

Without going into detail, certainly worse than it was pre all of this! No bailout came quickly enough and the other is uncertain so a significant hit.

Genuine q @Bar BS3 on the tax point, what % would go from Guernsey to the UK Exchequer? I'm not sure it's any but happy to be corrected- did he move to avoid tax or merely reduce it? I'm not suggesting he is flouting his obligations btw in case you or anyone get the wrong idea.

I don’t know, but he’s clearly not just hoarding his money. He invests massively, in several areas of the world, from Bristol - Guernsey- Africa. 
Moving to Guernsey probably allowed him more capital to invest in these projects. That’s very different to selfishly dodging/reducing tax payments. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, Bar BS3 said:

I don’t know, but he’s clearly not just hoarding his money. He invests massively, in several areas of the world, from Bristol - Guernsey- Africa. 
Moving to Guernsey probably allowed him more capital to invest in these projects. That’s very different to selfishly dodging/reducing tax payments. 

It's an interesting debate on the tax point- one thing is for sure he seems to be better than many who have taken that route.

[Maesknoll Red]

It’s a bit rich singling out Steve L.  He quite legally moved to another tax regime - maybe that tax saving is what gets invested into BS?

There are plenty of others, Louis Hamilton, Branson and too many more to mention, they haven’t broken any laws.

[Mr Popodopolous]

He's better than many in fairness, Branson especially sticks out.