The Coronavirus and its impact on sport/Fans Return (Merged)

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, hodge said:

There won't be one during the season but its a case of whether you're still deferring wages because of the lack of income, Sheffield Utd as said for example have deferred a portion for the rest of 2020, if a champ club does that and say season ends November (hypothetical) the rule would embargo them

We don’t know that, but I agree, I don’t see how you can without undermining the integrity of this season.

Re deferred wages for players and staff or clubs using CJRS, it would create an unfair playing field for clubs battling to sign a player...and therefore I tend to agree that transfers should be banned / scrutinised until players are repaid their deferred wages.  This is complicated when it comes to CJRS, as this is not repayable (apart from via hiked taxes in future), so you’d probably need a rule that says cannot sign a player whilst you have furloughed employees.  This will test the moral compass of clubs

[Lrrr]

 

[Vincent Vega]

22 minutes ago, hodge said:

 

Whilst I applaud his bravado,  it's not up to him or his CEO. Not even the EFL have a say in when or if it comes back, do they.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Vincent Vega

[Super]

10 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Whilst I applaud his bravado,  it's not up to him or his CEO. Bot even the EFL have a say in when or if it comes back, do they.

He is right though failure to complete this season will cause chaos. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

33 minutes ago, hodge said:

There won't be one during the season but its a case of whether you're still deferring wages because of the lack of income, Sheffield Utd as said for example have deferred a portion for the rest of 2020, if a champ club does that and say season ends November (hypothetical) the rule would embargo them

 

15 minutes ago, hodge said:

 

In normal times I'd certainly agree with this, how contracts must be paid in full, caught up before signing anyone new. Still holds to an extent now of course.

In a once in a century pandemic though and with income on streams of clubs falling off a cliff, deferral feels necessary.

Especially if that club takes taxpayers money to furlough staff, I'd say there is almost an obligation for the players to do their bit, deferral or cuts. Be it for wider solidarity or more business reasons ie the club income streams no longer being what they were.

It's a hard one certainly. Personally I don't think there is justification for furlough of non playing staff unless the players take a hit too.

See two possible examples, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday.

[Vincent Vega]

3 minutes ago, Super said:

He is right though failure to complete this season will cause chaos. 

Agreed, but I think finishing it will cause chaos also. Tough call to make.

[Bristol Rob]

Rovers have furloughed their players now.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/exclusive-bristol-rovers-furlough-players-4064494

Surprised they didn't do that earlier to be honest, I would imagine that even topping up their pay to 100% is still costing Wally a few quid.

And if they were to get a transfer embargo (which I would imagine in L1 and L2 is unlikely), it isn't as if they have previous for shelling out money, so they will hardly notice.

[Red Army 75]

 

Edited April 21, 2020 by Red Army 75

[S25loyal]

Dutch football off till September 

 

maybe people will start using common sense and working out it isn’t happening anytime soon 

[Vincent Vega]

39 minutes ago, S25loyal said:

Dutch football off till September 

 

maybe people will start using common sense and working out it isn’t happening anytime soon 

Where is this reported  ?

[Hunsupport]

27 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Where is this reported  ?

https://twitter.com/FootballOranje_/status/1252668911541276673

[S25loyal]

39 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

Where is this reported  ?

The Netherlands have extended a ban on major public events, including professional sports and music festivals, by three months, until Sept 1st. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Cowshed said:

But that is again the club deciding the players worth. We view that as a nonsense, or maybe we don't because its a industry standard, it is not unusual. Football clubs and in this case the owner Steve Lansdown chooses to run his club in that manner. 

It should be a nonsense but it isn't. Fans widely expect the club to lose money and spend beyond its means because the overwhelming majority of clubs do. 

Get all that. Do understand it and understand spending beyond means.

More than 100% of turnover on wages though is crazy. End of. IMO of course.

As for us, we're one of the better ones (by the standards of the division) tbh. See Birmingham and Reading. Higher % of turnover, higher wage bill in one case, similar in another yet certainly below us on the pitch- this is for 2018/19 season accounts.

[mozo]

Well teams in Spain will be training soon.

Some primary schools opening in France.

Italy likely to ease business restrictions in early May.

I'm not saying we're over the worst of it, but there's a trend among the countries affected earlier than UK of relaxation of lockdown. 

I still think football goes ahead this summer, maybe as early as June.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

18 minutes ago, mozo said:

Well teams in Spain will be training soon.

Some primary schools opening in France.

Italy likely to ease business restrictions in early May.

I'm not saying we're over the worst of it, but there's a trend among the countries affected earlier than UK of relaxation of lockdown. 

I still think football goes ahead this summer, maybe as early as June.

But relaxation probably wouldn’t involve scrapping social distancing for many months.

[Davefevs]

I’m disappointed we’ve furloughed some non-playing staff and will use CJRS to pay them 80%.

The whole range of Coronavirus business support packages are ill-conceived, and although the IT Delivery of CJRS has been a success, the number of people falling between gaps is very poor.  The loan scheme is not being taken up quick enough as businesses don’t pass the risk criteria leaving them in limbo / ready to go bust.  Add into this that they allow us to make moral judgement on whether it is right or wrong shows how unsuitable these are as a set of solutions.

I know many of us love SL, but I don’t see how this is any different in principle to Branson.

[windmillhillred]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m disappointed we’ve furloughed some non-playing staff and will use CJRS to pay them 80%.

The whole range of Coronavirus business support packages are ill-conceived, and although the IT Delivery of CJRS has been a success, the number of people falling between gaps is very poor.  The loan scheme is not being taken up quick enough as businesses don’t pass the risk criteria leaving them in limbo / ready to go bust.  Add into this that they allow us to make moral judgement on whether it is right or wrong shows how unsuitable these are as a set of solutions.

I know many of us love SL, but I don’t see how this is any different in principle to Branson.

Absolutely. Perfectly possible to greatly appreciate what SL has done for the club, the city and the wider region while being pretty appalled at this. Using the furlough scheme feels pretty questionable, but the idea that those working in the club shop, or in admin or whatever take a 20 per cent cut while the players will see all their wages is horrendous.

Edited April 21, 2020 by windmillhillred
.

[Bristol Rob]

29 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I’m disappointed we’ve furloughed some non-playing staff and will use CJRS to pay them 80%.

The whole range of Coronavirus business support packages are ill-conceived, and although the IT Delivery of CJRS has been a success, the number of people falling between gaps is very poor.  The loan scheme is not being taken up quick enough as businesses don’t pass the risk criteria leaving them in limbo / ready to go bust.  Add into this that they allow us to make moral judgement on whether it is right or wrong shows how unsuitable these are as a set of solutions.

I know many of us love SL, but I don’t see how this is any different in principle to Branson.

Reality is, the support is there regardless of your industry, and it's fair game. 

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Reality is, the support is there regardless of your industry, and it's fair game. 

Yep, agree. Ah well, more taxes to pay going forward.

[eardun]

33 minutes ago, windmillhillred said:

Absolutely. Perfectly possible to greatly appreciate what SL has done for the club, the city and the wider region while being pretty appalled at this. Using the furlough scheme feels pretty questionable, but the idea that those working in the club shop, or in admin or whatever take a 20 per cent cut while the players will see all their wages is horrendous.

I haven’t read anywhere that we are paying them only 80 percent. A lot of companies will be still be paying furloughed staff full pay and claiming 80 percent back from the Govt. Looks like the players and staff who aren’t furloughed are taking pay cuts/deferrals. Overall this gets us through the period of hardly any income without having to make staff redundant.

Edited April 21, 2020 by eardun

[Super]

1 hour ago, S25loyal said:

The Netherlands have extended a ban on major public events, including professional sports and music festivals, by three months, until Sept 1st. 

Could still be behind closed doors though?

[Mr Popodopolous]

In terms of our policy, I think we're somewhere in the middle.

We're not a Roma who have basically according to reports the other day, taken a 4 month pay cut- deferral not cut, as well as chipping in for the staff wages. Or closer to home though it's a deferral, in some ways a Leeds who have taken the hit without furlough, all non staff paid- albeit this must be paid back and indeed they've been rewarded with a 2% bonus for agreeing. So that changes that equation somewhat.

However, we're not also a Derby or Sheffield Wednesday who have furloughed staff, don't know if it's furloughed with taxpayer or otherwise, but have players on full whack.

Incidentally, what an irony it would be if we along with Leeds- two clubs who have to some level or another done the right thing had a signing embargo and Derby and Sheffield Wednesday didn't.

I digress, we're also not a Newcastle- a genuinely proftable PL club who have furloughed staff but still have players on full whack.

Nor are we quite a few PL clubs who have had nobody- players or staff- take a hit.

We;re bang in the middle IMO.

Would also add, to me Branson and SL differ somewhat. SL and his (well his and Peter Hargreaves) business ie HL has generated a lot of wealth and tax- in a way possibly that Branson's has not. Additionally, that cash he is investing, ploughing back into the city- and footballers in theory pay quite a bit of tax (though some at the higher end have come under significant scrutiny for seeking to avoid these obligations!)

I dunno it's a hard one- he certainly isn't asking for half a billion to bailout the business like Branson. I can't say I'm entirely favourable towards it but the players taking a 30% deferral too balances it a bit.

These comments incidentally are neutral as to his impact as an owner and a custodian of us- which I think has been very good, over the years.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bristol Rob]

Without quoting some of the longer posts, the furlough payments will likely end up in the hands of tax payers, and regardless of how well the company they work for are doing, or indeed how wealthy the owner of that company is, they have paid in to a system thorough taxation are now eligible for payment, rather than being laid off.

Not a perfect system by a long way, but if government make the offer, you'd be foolish not to take it.

 

[reddoh]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I’m disappointed we’ve furloughed some non-playing staff and will use CJRS to pay them 80%.

The whole range of Coronavirus business support packages are ill-conceived, and although the IT Delivery of CJRS has been a success, the number of people falling between gaps is very poor.  The loan scheme is not being taken up quick enough as businesses don’t pass the risk criteria leaving them in limbo / ready to go bust.  Add into this that they allow us to make moral judgement on whether it is right or wrong shows how unsuitable these are as a set of solutions.

I know many of us love SL, but I don’t see how this is any different in principle to Branson.

Branson owns an island 

SL lives on one.

seriously 

there are always people who take what they can whether they need it or not far few people care about others. 

[Davefevs]

43 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In terms of our policy, I think we're somewhere in the middle.

We're not a Roma who have basically according to reports the other day, taken a 4 month pay cut- deferral not cut, as well as chipping in for the staff wages. Or closer to home though it's a deferral, in some ways a Leeds who have taken the hit without furlough, all non staff paid- albeit this must be paid back and indeed they've been rewarded with a 2% bonus for agreeing. So that changes that equation somewhat.

However, we're not also a Derby or Sheffield Wednesday who have furloughed staff, don't know if it's furloughed with taxpayer or otherwise, but have players on full whack.

Incidentally, what an irony it would be if we along with Leeds- two clubs who have to some level or another done the right thing had a signing embargo and Derby and Sheffield Wednesday didn't.

I digress, we're also not a Newcastle- a genuinely proftable PL club who have furloughed staff but still have players on full whack.

Nor are we quite a few PL clubs who have had nobody- players or staff- take a hit.

We;re bang in the middle IMO.

Would also add, to me Branson and SL differ somewhat. SL and his (well his and Peter Hargreaves) business ie HL has generated a lot of wealth and tax- in a way possibly that Branson's has not. Additionally, that cash he is investing, ploughing back into the city- and footballers in theory pay quite a bit of tax (though some at the higher end have come under significant scrutiny for seeking to avoid these obligations!)

I dunno it's a hard one- he certainly isn't asking for half a billion to bailout the business like Branson. I can't say I'm entirely favourable towards it but the players taking a 30% deferral too balances it a bit.

These comments incidentally are neutral as to his impact as an owner and a custodian of us- which I think has been very good, over the years.

Good post....got really mixed views on this, keep changing my mind about where I stand.

32 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Without quoting some of the longer posts, the furlough payments will likely end up in the hands of tax payers, and regardless of how well the company they work for are doing, or indeed how wealthy the owner of that company is, they have paid in to a system thorough taxation are now eligible for payment, rather than being laid off.

Not a perfect system by a long way, but if government make the offer, you'd be foolish not to take it.

 

Would it be fairer (in future) that those businesses that used CJRS pay more Corporation Tax to recover it?  Guess some would never pay it back???

[And Its Smith]

A company making £15m losses per year claims furlough for staff who cannot work. Seems fair to me.  

[Selred]

4 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

A company making £15m losses per year claims furlough for staff who cannot work. Seems fair to me.  

Owned by a man worth £2.2 billion. 

Some players on £10k plus a week still earning their wage in full, vs other staff at the opposite end of the pay scale only getting 80% paid by us. 

Seems unfair to me. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Selred said:

Owned by a man worth £2.2 billion. 

Some players on £10k plus a week still earning their wage in full, vs other staff at the opposite end of the pay scale only getting 80% paid by us. 

Seems unfair to me. 

30% deferral. Granted a deferral isn't a cut, but it's a short to medium term hit.

Who knows the terms- they might be paid back over time or subject to % based on more normal revenue streams returning.

[reddoh]

16 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

A company making £15m losses per year claims furlough for staff who cannot work. Seems fair to me.  

company making £15m losses per year if they can't afford it should go bust and the last people to get money should be the owners(just my own personal opinion and not that of any company I may have worked for in the past).

seems fair to me. 

[And Its Smith]

20 minutes ago, Selred said:

Owned by a man worth £2.2 billion. 

Some players on £10k plus a week still earning their wage in full, vs other staff at the opposite end of the pay scale only getting 80% paid by us. 

Seems unfair to me. 

Has it been confirmed that Bristol City aren’t topping up the 80% to full wages?