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

Furloughing staff at the club


Recommended Posts

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
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).

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
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
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
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
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
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
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.

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
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
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.

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.

 

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
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. 

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
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
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
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.

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
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
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..?

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
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.

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
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. 

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
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...