Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Loderingo

Recommended Posts

On the general furlough, embargo point- apologies if already covered but did read this elsewhere.

Quote

One aggrieved club chief told the newspaper: “It is just kicking the can down the road. These clubs should be in for a transfer embargo.

“Why should those who balance the books and pay their players in full be punished? We won’t sit back and watch these teams make signings.”

Wonder who? Would be deeply ironic if it was Mel Morris, Chansiri or someone in the top brass at Reading given a) Their wage bills as a proportion of salaries and b) Given their FFP issues or in the case of the latter, surely something down the track.

Not least as the first two owners have apparently furloughed staff but kept players on full whack.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

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.

30% hit for well paid players is better than 20% hit for those at the other end. 

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

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

It hasn't been mentioned that they will, which if was the case would definitely be mentioned. Even Bristol Rovers are topping up the 20%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours 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.

Completely out of sync with the real world.....he ain't no Messiah to me,,,more the 'naughty boy...............

Just another typical big businessman,,,,and certainly lost touch with his roots.

Edited by Robert the bruce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, reddoh said:

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. 

So the beneficiaries should pay tax in to a system, but not be able to take advantage of this when they have nothing to do, and the only other option is redundancy.

Get the SL has billions argument, but he didn't cause the virus or spend weeks wondering how to react. Or indeed close football down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, eardun said:

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.

The club have said that this has happened:  pay cuts for staff; deferrals for the players. I’m not criticising the players, but the reality is that the club has taken the decision to protect the interests of players ahead of staff. And that sticks in the throat a little (I’m not blaming the players by the way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, windmillhillred said:

The club have said that this has happened:  pay cuts for staff; deferrals for the players. I’m not criticising the players, but the reality is that the club has taken the decision to protect the interests of players ahead of staff. And that sticks in the throat a little (I’m not blaming the players by the way).

Staff can do alternative work, such as delivering driving, players are still having to follow training and dietary plans given by the club so are technically still working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Staff can do alternative work, such as delivering driving, players are still having to follow training and dietary plans given by the club so are technically still working.

Yep that is a good point, but if you do another job while your furloughed don’t you lose some of the furlough payment?  

 

Edited by windmillhillred
Pressed send to soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours 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.

I don't think we want City to be in the middle, we want to be the best, the shining example of how clubs can get their priorities right, and how players can be realistic about their extraordinary wealth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

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

 

8 hours 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. 

Also worth bearing in mind that the club are happy to take advantage of the government furlough scheme, whilst being registered in Guernsey for tax-avoiding purposes. We're no different to many other clubs in that respect (including the g*s) but worth pointing out.

8 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

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

The article on bcfc.co.uk specifically states that non-playing staff have taken a "temporary voluntary salary reduction" so we have to assume the club aren't topping up the remaining 20% of staff members salaries. Think that's very poor myself, and as you say plenty of other companies are doing it; why not us, when the owner of the club has such unbelievably deep pockets? A 20% wage reduction on someone earning £22k a year is a massive hit.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

 

Also worth bearing in mind that the club are happy to take advantage of the government furlough scheme, whilst being registered in Guernsey for tax-avoiding purposes. We're no different to many other clubs in that respect (including the g*s) but worth pointing out.

The article on bcfc.co.uk specifically states that non-playing staff have taken a "temporary voluntary salary reduction" so we have to assume the club aren't topping up the remaining 20% of staff members salaries. Think that's very poor myself, and as you say plenty of other companies are doing it; why not us, when the owner of the club has such unbelievably deep pockets? A 20% wage reduction on someone earning £22k a year is a massive hit.

Reality is, most privately listed companies *and some publically listed* have owners worth billions and are doing this. It isn't a moral issue limited to football.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the official site it said all staff have taken a voluntary pay cut....I assume that means the players as well ? 

 

I assumed the players had taken the wage cut above and then also a deferral?

 

No? If the players haven't taken a pay cut but we have asked non playing staff to then that's a disgrace regardless of deferrals etc 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Humble Realist said:

 

No? If the players haven't taken a pay cut but we have asked non playing staff to then that's a disgrace regardless of deferrals etc 

Without clear guidance from either the EFL or the players union, clubs and players are in limbo.

Don't honour the contract you agreed and an asset on your balance sheet worth millions can suddenly walk away for nothing might be part of the challenge for clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Without clear guidance from either the EFL or the players union, clubs and players are in limbo.

Don't honour the contract you agreed and an asset on your balance sheet worth millions can suddenly walk away for nothing might be part of the challenge for clubs.

I’m amazed the players think they have a big say in all of this, football won’t be the same when it resumes. 

The premier league etc are just desperate for it to restart on money grounds, nothing else. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely this is a matter of principle .

Tea lady takes voluntary pay cut  who normally earns 10k a year (pro rata)

Manager Lee Johnson takes voluntary pay cut earning 60k a year (example) 

Player  takes deferral but no cut who earns 2k a week (£104k a year)

Player takes deferral  but no cut who earns 20k a week (£1,040,000 a year)

Forget unions, pfa stances etc that cant be right, fair or just.

Sometimes I hate the world we live in.

 

Disclaimer : City aren't the only club behaving like this 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, S25loyal said:

Dutch football off till September 

 

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

Of course it won’t be happening soon, way too many issues to allow a quick restart, not least the problem if a member of club staff tests positive. Also issues with contracts expiring 30 June, survival of clubs, lack of income for closed door games etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Perhaps I’ve not read it correctly. Didn’t realise that people still working had taken pay cuts as well. 

The Mark Ashton video (5m45s) confirms:

- players taken a 3 month deferral (percentages around the 30% mark)

- staff taken a pay cut (c20% we believe)

- non-playing staff some taken a pay cut, some placed on furlough and pay reduced (using the CJRS scheme)

Lots of confusion yesterday re terminology of staff, in this case it means the likes of Lee, Macca and Deano, etc, as opposed to non-playing staff, like admin staff etc.

Players will have different contractual obligations to staff and non-playing staff.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they'd have made it clearer in the statement if the players had taken a pay cut.

Regarding the "Lansdown could pay everyone" argument.  I get it, and generally agree.  Steve Lansdown has been a great owner for us in the current football world and is just about the best we could get, but there's definitely something concerning about a guy having that much money.  And that's at any time, let alone a time like this.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

Reality is, most privately listed companies *and some publically listed* have owners worth billions and are doing this. It isn't a moral issue limited to football.

No, it isn't a moral issue limited to football, but don't we always have people saying that football clubs are more than businesses?  And plenty of people recognise the moral issue with other companies and are free to make their point about those companies.

Like others on this thread, I love what SL has done for the club.  But for any businessman worth as much as he is to be taking money from the taxpayer whilst exiling himself - if this was any other club, would it really not be leaving a bad taste in your mouth?  What this fundamentally boils down to is people who have made fortunes in the good times (whether that be HL, Virgin or Sports Direct) not wanting to take a hit in the bad times.  I thought that was the point of capitalism - you invested money and took risks?  Not come to the tax payer as soon as there is a problem (admittedly one out of your control).

It does rather question why Jon Lansdown asked for the survey run by then supporters club regarding furlough etc. to be done if they weren't going to wait for results.  I have to say, I've supported the club for 40 years, and this has left as bad a taste in the mouth as any high profile defeat or off pitch cock up.

Seriously - any football club looking to taxpayers for money when they are operating the business models they do should be ashamed.

Edited by jonb
Multiple Typos!
  • Like 8
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say it's quite interesting for me reading Your thoughts about the finance part during this pandemic.

For one reason is I just don't get it why everyone is still so upset with the owner, players after they announced this deferral (same opinion for other clubs as well). I guess SL has most of his fortune in estates, shares, etc. not actually in cash in a bank: he has to navigate and think about the future as well.

An owner doesn't have to spend all his money on his club (in any sports) he just have to make sure the club can and will prosper in the future as well, after the pandemic. All clubs will take firther hits as time goes by: imagine the future losses if fans can't go to games for let's say another 6 months. What now owners or club leaders can do is prepare for that 6/9/12 months in advance and make sure that those who are now furloughed for 2-3 months can be fully paid when they actually can work at games. If it takes getting money for this period from the government than be it.

And face it: during mankind's history there were always the rich people (or call them priviliged) and the others. Even during communism despite their doctrines. It won't ever happen that even under these circumstances the tea lady will get the same pay then the main assets, the players at any club.

As a closer example: at our firm we're on 50% pay cut for this month and the next one; we're depending on a worldwide known Spanish clothing giant to re-start producing and transporting to Hungary. We literally don't have any work to do since 01/04, shops are closed now, maybe starting again in May. So we are getting paid 50%, sitting at home, maybe checking emails once / day - but I'm getting a lot more money than the truck drivers as I work at the office, my 50% is more than theirs. So now I have to feel guilty about it (to be candid I offered that I can live if I don't get 1 months salary if it helps someone else)? And our owner (he has other businesses as well which are still up and running) also could have just said in March that "guys, this will take more 3 months with no income, my contract for the deliveries can be nullified in 45 days with the clothing company. I don't want to pay a cent from my savings without any income, so You're all fired, goodbye." But he didn't... 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hunsupport said:

I have to say it's quite interesting for me reading Your thoughts about the finance part during this pandemic.

For one reason is I just don't get it why everyone is still so upset with the owner, players after they announced this deferral (same opinion for other clubs as well). I guess SL has most of his fortune in estates, shares, etc. not actually in cash in a bank: he has to navigate and think about the future as well.

An owner doesn't have to spend all his money on his club (in any sports) he just have to make sure the club can and will prosper in the future as well, after the pandemic. All clubs will take firther hits as time goes by: imagine the future losses if fans can't go to games for let's say another 6 months. What now owners or club leaders can do is prepare for that 6/9/12 months in advance and make sure that those who are now furloughed for 2-3 months can be fully paid when they actually can work at games. If it takes getting money for this period from the government than be it.

And face it: during mankind's history there were always the rich people (or call them priviliged) and the others. Even during communism despite their doctrines. It won't ever happen that even under these circumstances the tea lady will get the same pay then the main assets, the players at any club.

As a closer example: at our firm we're on 50% pay cut for this month and the next one; we're depending on a worldwide known Spanish clothing giant to re-start producing and transporting to Hungary. We literally don't have any work to do since 01/04, shops are closed now, maybe starting again in May. So we are getting paid 50%, sitting at home, maybe checking emails once / day - but I'm getting a lot more money than the truck drivers as I work at the office, my 50% is more than theirs. So now I have to feel guilty about it (to be candid I offered that I can live if I don't get 1 months salary if it helps someone else)? And our owner (he has other businesses as well which are still up and running) also could have just said in March that "guys, this will take more 3 months with no income, my contract for the deliveries can be nullified in 45 days with the clothing company. I don't want to pay a cent from my savings without any income, so You're all fired, goodbye." But he didn't... 

Thanks, really interesting to see this perspective. I take issue with one thing though, the idea that Steve Lansdown has to think about his future. Important to remember how astronomically wealthy he is. His wealth, and you’re right of course that most of it won’t be in cash, is over 50,000 times the average salary in the UK.

 He could foot the wage bill for the club for the rest of his life while still living an incredible lifestyle and having millions to pass onto his family. Of course nobody expects him to do that, and we are all grateful for what he has done for the club. But the reality is that there will be people at the club, like everywhere in society, who are really struggling at the moment. He could prevent that from happening but instead is taking advantage of a scheme paid for by taxpayers (now and for god knows how long into the future) when he has made a conscious decision to become a tax exile. People are right, in my view, to question that.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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...