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

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
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. 

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
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.

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
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

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
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. 

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).

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.

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. 

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.

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! 

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. 

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.

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
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes 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. 

Personally, I think our key services should have been better invested in over a period of years with an appropriate taxation system that facilitates it....so that we don’t need to put pressure on any particular group to help out.

Its left services like the NHS (plenty of other services too) being ravaged and therefore under-prepared in the event of a crisis. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your point of view, I believe our club is split into 3 different companies. If you unfortunately work for the stadium or BS you’re probably gonna get furloughed like many other people. Fortunately, for the football club, they can take the moral high ground of claiming to not have furloughed anyone?

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

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

Am I being a knob..? Or am I just pointing out why a business that loses millions every year probably can’t afford to go splashing cash around while they’ve got little income and massive outgoings. 
Fairness doesn’t really come in to it, sadly. 
Footballers don’t get massive wages because they’ve stumbled into a nicely paid job or won the lottery. They’ve dedicated their careers to excelling in a particular field and have had to make sacrifices to do so. 
I don’t think it’s “being a knob” to not just sit there saying that everybody should be bailing out the less well paid (which most certainly includes me!) I don’t expect my struggling company to top up my 80% wage, because the money isn’t there to do it and I don’t expect the people in better paid positions than mine to be donating a percentage of their wage to cover the balance of mine either. 

  • Hmmm 1
  • Aubergine 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

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.

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!

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.

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..?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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 

Interestingly, at some of the Spanish sides the players have taken a 70% wage cut, this so all the backroom staff can continue to be paid their full wages. This includes Barcelona and Atletico Madrid. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Personally, I think our key services should have been better invested in over a period of years with an appropriate taxation system that facilitates it....so that we don’t need to put pressure on any particular group to help out.

Its left services like the NHS (plenty of other services too) being ravaged and therefore under-prepared in the event of a crisis. 

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..! 
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Personally, I think our key services should have been better invested in over a period of years with an appropriate taxation system that facilitates it....so that we don’t need to put pressure on any particular group to help out.

Its left services like the NHS (plenty of other services too) being ravaged and therefore under-prepared in the event of a crisis. 

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.

 

  • Like 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

Interestingly, at some of the Spanish sides the players have taken a 70% wage cut, this so all the backroom staff can continue to be paid their full wages. This includes Barcelona and Atletico Madrid. 

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. 

  • Hmmm 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

Am I being a knob..? Or am I just pointing out why a business that loses millions every year probably can’t afford to go splashing cash around while they’ve got little income and massive outgoings. 
Fairness doesn’t really come in to it, sadly. 
Footballers don’t get massive wages because they’ve stumbled into a nicely paid job or won the lottery. They’ve dedicated their careers to excelling in a particular field and have had to make sacrifices to do so. 
I don’t think it’s “being a knob” to not just sit there saying that everybody should be bailing out the less well paid (which most certainly includes me!) I don’t expect my struggling company to top up my 80% wage, because the money isn’t there to do it and I don’t expect the people in better paid positions than mine to be donating a percentage of their wage to cover the balance of mine either. 

I think you are yes 😂 in a good way though!  I’m a knob loads when debating it’s fine, and I genuinely mean no harm, I call my mate a knob every day!

I 100% think in times like these especially, the more well off should help the less well off.  And I 100% think that the less well off shouldn’t be the only ones who have to sacrifice and the more well off don’t.  That’s not fair, and I don’t agree with it.

Businesses I.e. City are losing millions every year, agreed, so surely this is more reason that players are impacted considering the reason nearly all clubs are in the shit financially is because they pay footballers too much cash.  Yes not the players fault it’s the clubs, but just because they’ve sacrificed loads and trained for years, doesn’t give them IMO a pass in times like these, especially when NPS from the same football club (I know they are technically employed by different companies) should take the hit financially.  It’s morally disgraceful even if legal.

As I’ve said before, I expect most players will want to do something to help the NPS so. I don’t think they need you telling everyone they should keep getting paid top whack.

The problem at the end of the day is their contracts, and if there wasn’t a clause for salaries to drop in times like these then there certainly will be going forward I guarantee, and quite rightly.

Edited by Tinmans Love Child
  • Like 2
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...