Jump to content
IGNORED

Ashton Gate Limited - Job Losses


Davefevs

Recommended Posts

On 23/07/2020 at 23:56, Son Of Nob said:

Fair enough, you call me misguided but - ultimately - nothing to back it up except conjecture.

I don't think Steve Lansdown has invested £100m+(?) for any other reason than he wants to see Bristol City be the best club possible.

 

Now, he may, eventually, own land greater than the value of his investment (massively unlikely given the returns he could have made on other investments Billionaires make), but to infer that's part of an ultimate plan, I think, is a bit disrespectful for what he's done for this club.

 

 

On 24/07/2020 at 06:50, Numero Uno said:

Shouldn't someone who is prepared to invest their own money get some benefit? The guy doesn't exist to please you.

It seems that people want the owner to pump in tens of millions so we can watch good players and sell season tickets for about a ton each so they can watch cheap football whilst the owner makes a massive loss on his outlay and receives no benefit back whatsoever? How ******* mental is that type of thinking? It's his money and he could piss off tomorrow and, if he did, where are all these Russians/Saudi's/Yanks/Asians queueing round the block (socially distanced of course) to buy Bristol City FC at a price that is way over the odds, set aside billions of their personal fortune on player investment, ensure that football is FREE for all at Ashton Gate and be happy to have no INVESTMENT in return for this huge outlay? All I can see at present is the threat of badly owned clubs (in terms of finance) like Wigan facing points deductions. "It's only Wigan" you might say but I can see a domino effect occurring if Supporters cannot get back to games shortly.

Steves investment in Bristol City was about £4 million if memory serves at a time when previous boards of directors had worked over many years to bring the balance sheet up to £10 million net assets but that was with Ashton Gate sitting in the accounts at around £8 million book value but with a market value of around £25 million. All approximate numbers from memory but the bottom line is Steve bought the asset on the cheap. Because nobody else at the time viewed it in the same way. Since then Steve spent football club money on professional fees trying to get planning on an asset which he ultimately owns personally, ie Ashton Vale, which probably he’s not that bothered he didn’t get planning for the new stadium because probably he will eventually get far more valuable planning ie residential. 
 

The other investment you speak of has been to enhance the value of what used to belong to all of us but now belongs to Steve ie Ashton Gate. Net expenditure on players being largely neutral. 
 

I’m not knocking Steve but anyone who thinks Steve is a philanthropic benefactor doesn’t really understand land values or the security which Steve has. If he had to sell tomorrow don’t worry there wouldn’t be much if any net loss to his wealth. 
 

From a business point of view good luck to him that’s business, which, as Steve said to me, is all that football is. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Badger08 said:

I wonder if anyone on here concerned / complaining about redundancies and the club always taking the "cheap option" in general, are the same people who asked for a refund on their season tickets? ?

Would be interesting to cross reference on the refund thread. 

Why would there be any correlation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, frenchred said:

I don't agree at all with the redundancies and I had a refund, please show me the irony?

No irony that I can see!

Just wondering how keeping staff on if there is nothing for them to do makes any sense.

In a perfect world, there would be jobs for all, but we don't live in a perfect world, so how you can 'disagree' with roles becoming redundant baffles me a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

No irony that I can see!

Just wondering how keeping staff on if there is nothing for them to do makes any sense.

In a perfect world, there would be jobs for all, but we don't live in a perfect world, so how you can 'disagree' with roles becoming redundant baffles me a bit.

It doesn't yet lansdown is Satan for not doing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leeds football side of the club took a sufficiently large hit with respect to deferral to ensure no use of furlough and the aim for zero redundancies. That was actually a stated aim, according to one media outlet at least.

Now the comparison is only valid up to a point. That boost brought time in the short term but given that they looked rather likely to go up and gain that PL cash it was relatively low risk.

The comparison falls down beyond the short term early in the pandemic but a nice easy PR hit all the same. Bit of credit to them too.

What will be more instructive is how other existing Championship clubs handle it moving forward. Off the Pitch could offer useful insight in this area. We'll see anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Leeds football side of the club took a sufficiently large hit with respect to deferral to ensure no use of furlough and the aim for zero redundancies. That was actually a stated aim, according to one media outlet at least.

Now the comparison is only valid up to a point. That boost brought time in the short term but given that they looked rather likely to go up and gain that PL cash it was relatively low risk.

The comparison falls down beyond the short term early in the pandemic but a nice easy PR hit all the same. Bit of credit to them too.

What will be more instructive is how other existing Championship clubs handle it moving forward. Off the Pitch could offer useful insight in this area. We'll see anyway.

It'll need more thought than just numbers being made redundant by the respective football club/stadium companies though.

AFAIK the events business at Ashton Gate is operated pretty much entirely in house (venue staff, catering, security etc) so when events dry up, it's Ashton Gate Ltd that has staff with little to do. Others will have outsourced stuff like catering to companies like Centerplate, Sodexo, Levy and Compass so when events dry up at the Liberty Stadium, it'll be Sodexo making stuff redundant and at the Mad Stad, it'll be Levy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

It'll need more thought than just numbers being made redundant by the respective football club/stadium companies though.

AFAIK the events business at Ashton Gate is operated pretty much entirely in house (venue staff, catering, security etc) so when events dry up, it's Ashton Gate Ltd that has staff with little to do. Others will have outsourced stuff like catering to companies like Centerplate, Sodexo, Levy and Compass so when events dry up at the Liberty Stadium, it'll be Sodexo making stuff redundant and at the Mad Stad, it'll be Levy.

Fair, thanks. 

Will search local media online periodically for this stuff. If it's as you describe, there will almost certainly (if it's not been the case already) layoffs in these outsourced companies.

Business models will be a factor too of course.

I mean yeah, the basic principle of no work=no job is of course key here but context and wider picture (within Championship football) will be interesting of course.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NickJ said:

 

Steves investment in Bristol City was about £4 million if memory serves at a time when previous boards of directors had worked over many years to bring the balance sheet up to £10 million net assets but that was with Ashton Gate sitting in the accounts at around £8 million book value but with a market value of around £25 million. All approximate numbers from memory but the bottom line is Steve bought the asset on the cheap. Because nobody else at the time viewed it in the same way. Since then Steve spent football club money on professional fees trying to get planning on an asset which he ultimately owns personally, ie Ashton Vale, which probably he’s not that bothered he didn’t get planning for the new stadium because probably he will eventually get far more valuable planning ie residential. 
 

The other investment you speak of has been to enhance the value of what used to belong to all of us but now belongs to Steve ie Ashton Gate. Net expenditure on players being largely neutral. 
 

I’m not knocking Steve but anyone who thinks Steve is a philanthropic benefactor doesn’t really understand land values or the security which Steve has. If he had to sell tomorrow don’t worry there wouldn’t be much if any net loss to his wealth. 
 

From a business point of view good luck to him that’s business, which, as Steve said to me, is all that football is. 

 

Your memory is definitely playing up, if not completely mis-representing the facts.

The club and Ashton Gate never belonged to us all, it has always been owned by the shareholders of the companies that have owned them.  Whilst someone might feel some sense of proprietorship, unless you have owned shares in the owning company - tough.

Lansdown's first investment was in June 1996 for a princely sum of £137,750, which which he acquired 6.2% of the company.  The previous directors and owners still controlled the company after Lansdown's first investment.  The ground was rubbish, as was the team, wasn't 1995/96 the season that some unmentionable club finished ahead of us.

I agree that at the time the net assets of the company were around £10 million.  Ashton Gate had been revalued on a 'depreciated cost' basis less than a year earlier.  To suggest that the open market value of the land was £25 million in 1996 is laughable, unless of course you live in Derby :).

We could go through more history but to suggest that someone would invest in excess of £110 million over the next 24 years and not be partly philanthropic suggests that the club is currently worth well in excess £110 million.  Good luck on that valuation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Fair, thanks. 

Will search local media online periodically for this stuff. If it's as you describe, there will almost certainly (if it's not been the case already) layoffs in these outsourced companies.

Business models will be a factor too of course.

I mean yeah, the basic principle of no work=no job is of course key here but context and wider picture (within Championship football) will be interesting of course.. 

Remember this one

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/derby-county-chef-zero-hours-4013757

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

It'll need more thought than just numbers being made redundant by the respective football club/stadium companies though.

AFAIK the events business at Ashton Gate is operated pretty much entirely in house (venue staff, catering, security etc) so when events dry up, it's Ashton Gate Ltd that has staff with little to do. Others will have outsourced stuff like catering to companies like Centerplate, Sodexo, Levy and Compass so when events dry up at the Liberty Stadium, it'll be Sodexo making stuff redundant and at the Mad Stad, it'll be Levy.

Exactly. It is extremely unfortunate but we have staff who literally have nothing they can be given to do at the present time and no obvious work they can do at any time on the horizon. No business, whether funded by a billionaire tax exile or otherwise, will employ people to literally sit around and do nothing on a long term basis. The world simply doesn't work like that and anybody throwing mud at Steve Lansdown for not keeping these people on, presumably on the basis that he personally is loaded, has a bizarre thought process in my view.

It seems to me that the Hospitality/Events/Luxury Items industries somehow want to be treated differently to everybody else. Again, extremely unfortunate, we are on the verge of a situation where FOUR MILLION people could be out of a job. How can a pub owner, a restaurant, a holiday company or even a football club for that matter EXPECT and ASSUME that these people who are losing their jobs are going to spend their savings on their product/services at the same time as having a £1,000 per month mortgage to service, a £75-£100 per week food bill, electricity, gas, water and the like and, at the same time, NO INCOME?

Certain industries have to expand and contract to meet demand, Construction being an obvious example, and the number of available jobs and wages paid are commensurate with the demand. So you get times when decent plumbers earn £1,250 per week, other times when they are earning £750 per week and once in every ten years or so they literally struggle to earn anything for a period of time. All Bristol City Holdings/Ashton Gate Stadium or whoever it is are doing is reacting to a lack of demand that is likely to remain so for the medium term. As somebody who has been on the receiving end of salary sacrifice/job loss myself in the past I cannot see what they have done wrong personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Cheers.

Derby it's hard to keep up on- their company structure is quite complex to say the least!

Seems that Delaware North fits into Club DCFC- this company has catering/hospitality within their remit- Delaware North have not actually mentioned Pride Park on Twitter since April 2017, which is odd- I know Derby pre Mel Morris was owned by Americans so it could have been linked to that too.

1 minute ago, Numero Uno said:

Exactly. It is extremely unfortunate but we have staff who literally have nothing they can be given to do at the present time and no obvious work they can do at any time on the horizon. No business, whether funded by a billionaire tax exile or otherwise, will employ people to literally sit around and do nothing on a long term basis. The world simply doesn't work like that and anybody throwing mud at Steve Lansdown for not keeping these people on, presumably on the basis that he personally is loaded, has a bizarre thought process in my view.

It seems to me that the Hospitality/Events/Luxury Items industries somehow want to be treated differently to everybody else. Again, extremely unfortunate, we are on the verge of a situation where FOUR MILLION people could be out of a job. How can a pub owner, a restaurant, a holiday company or even a football club for that matter EXPECT and ASSUME that these people who are losing their jobs are going to spend their savings on their product/services at the same time as having a £1,000 per month mortgage to service, a £75-£100 per week food bill, electricity, gas, water and the like and, at the same time, NO INCOME?

Certain industries have to expand and contract to meet demand, Construction being an obvious example, and the number of available jobs and wages paid are commensurate with the demand. So you get times when decent plumbers earn £1,250 per week, other times when they are earning £750 per week and once in every ten years or so they literally struggle to earn anything for a period of time. All Bristol City Holdings/Ashton Gate Stadium or whoever it is are doing is reacting to a lack of demand that is likely to remain so for the medium term. As somebody who has been on the receiving end of salary sacrifice/job loss myself in the past I cannot see what they have done wrong personally.

Let's wait and see how it compares to other Championship clubs however yes a lot of what you say is fair.

IF we are an outlier with redundancies among Championship clubs, this will not be a good look no matter how you wish to spin it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Thanks I'll start to have a look round.

Will look to keep an eye on local media and if I resubscribe, Off The Pitch- our thing got a mention in the latter btw.

https://offthepitch.com/a/bristol-stadium-lay-staff-preston-chief-executive-retire-huddersfield-appoint-coach-bielsa-staff

Sounds like they've had a fairly 'good' pandemic on the face of it- but that may only be a small part of it.

https://www.cbi.org.uk/articles/compass-group-redeploying-people-to-meet-change-head-on/

They're part of Compass Group and Levy is specifically noted within the above.

I've have a look around and see if I can get an idea of how many layoffs- especially football stadia operational related ones- these two have made however. Delaware North, an article about them lists multiple stadia but doesn't seem to mention Pride Park oddly.

EDIT- Looking at Club DCFC as I type. Seems it's an 80%-20% split, as of the most recent confirmation statement- happy to count the zeros again but appears that Sevco 5112-Delaware North UK- 80-20 in that order- prior confirmation statement may show something different though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bob Taylor is GOD said:

Badger08 must think you and I are contributing to the redundancies in some way ?

It’s incredibly virtuous of him isn’t it! 
 

End of the day, there is currently no work for these people. Sad as it is. A company cannot continue to employ people if it has no income. 
 

As regards refunds. Let’s assume we have 15k season tickets. Let’s assume half of those opted for a refund (and that’s a high assumption). The average refund would’ve been about £90 I believe. So we’re talking less than £7k hit to the club. 
I don’t think that £7k would’ve gone very far had they wanted to keep these staff on. 
 

As for players continuing to be paid. 
Well, they are still working aren’t they? 
The wages for footballers are ridiculous, agreed. But if we didn’t pay the wages we pay then we wouldn’t have the players we have. So it’s a football-wide issue, not a BCFC or AG Stadium issue. 
 

No one is to blame for this and nothing can really be done about it, sadly. 
Fans taking a refund of £90 have absolutely no impact on this - anyone suggesting so ought to stop being so virtuous. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Harry said:

It’s incredibly virtuous of him isn’t it! 
 

End of the day, there is currently no work for these people. Sad as it is. A company cannot continue to employ people if it has no income. 
 

As regards refunds. Let’s assume we have 15k season tickets. Let’s assume half of those opted for a refund (and that’s a high assumption). The average refund would’ve been about £90 I believe. So we’re talking less than £7k hit to the club. 
I don’t think that £7k would’ve gone very far had they wanted to keep these staff on. 
 

As for players continuing to be paid. 
Well, they are still working aren’t they? 
The wages for footballers are ridiculous, agreed. But if we didn’t pay the wages we pay then we wouldn’t have the players we have. So it’s a football-wide issue, not a BCFC or AG Stadium issue. 
 

No one is to blame for this and nothing can really be done about it, sadly. 
Fans taking a refund of £90 have absolutely no impact on this - anyone suggesting so ought to stop being so virtuous. 

 

thank you Harry (auto correct)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question in general for @Harry and @Monkeh

When Liverpool and Tottenham used furlough for non playing staff, what was your stance?

As I recall they got hammered for their stance and backtracked- granted the scales are very different but there is some similarity in principle.

The similarity being just because you legally can, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Question in general for @Harry and @Monkeh

When Liverpool and Tottenham used furlough for non playing staff, what was your stance?

As I recall they got hammered for their stance and backtracked- granted the scales are very different but there is some similarity in principle.

The similarity being just because you legally can, doesn't necessarily mean you should.

non playing football staff not a different company doing different business

What don't you get that, the more you refuse to acknowledge the more you look like a troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

non playing football staff not a different company doing different business

What don't you get that, the more you refuse to acknowledge the more you look like a troll

I'm waiting to see how it looks for other clubs before I make a definitive judgement.

It's part of Bristol City Holdings still, some of it- just a matter of corporate structure.

Happy to look but I'm fairly sure the ones they got criticised for, were inclusive of non football staff verbatim.

Actually, it's a little more interesting than I thought.

Bristol City Holdings no longer controls AGL as a direct controlling party- the latter is as per Companies House, Person of Significant Control.

I'll acknowledge the differences with respect to corporate structure but will give it some time before waiting to see how the picture looks more broadly.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05450440/persons-with-significant-control

I think having slept on it in general we've acted about average.

We've not acted outstandingly, nor have we acted badly- we've acted about average, like many- maybe the bulk- of clubs and companies. Which is fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Question in general for @Harry and @Monkeh

When Liverpool and Tottenham used furlough for non playing staff, what was your stance?

As I recall they got hammered for their stance and backtracked- granted the scales are very different but there is some similarity in principle.

Every company in the country was entitled to furlough staff if they were not able to offer them employment at the time. 

You seem very keen to equate ‘footballers wages’ with ‘employees of football clubs’. 
 

If a football club had no work available for its general employees, then it matters not what the players earn, the employees were entitled to furlough. 
 

Probably the same in many companies. Let’s take an example of any company, let’s say they brew cider. They have a finance director who earns £200k per annum and a HR unit which employs 3 people earning a combined £100k. 
They also have 50 other employees, who work in the factory, distribution, sales, advertising, IT etc. 
They are a well-off, successful company, regular making millions in profits. 
The company had no work for its 50 other employees and so furloughed them. 
The Finance Director however, had to keep working as he was trying to ensure his business wouldn’t go under completely, and he also continued to pay the HR staff, who had to sort out the furlough paperwork for the other 50 employees and make sure they got their pay, as well keeping employee comms going. 
 

Was it right for the FD to continue to take his £200k salary, whilst the rest of the workforce were furloughed? In your mind, it appears that because he earns so much more than the others and the company is cash-rich he shouldn’t have carried on being paid. 
 

In short - if there is no work for an employee then every single company was entitled to use the furlough scheme - no matter how rich they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

Every company in the country was entitled to furlough staff if they were not able to offer them employment at the time. 

You seem very keen to equate ‘footballers wages’ with ‘employees of football clubs’. 
 

If a football club had no work available for its general employees, then it matters not what the players earn, the employees were entitled to furlough. 
 

Probably the same in many companies. Let’s take an example of any company, let’s say they brew cider. They have a finance director who earns £200k per annum and a HR unit which employs 3 people earning a combined £100k. 
They also have 50 other employees, who work in the factory, distribution, sales, advertising, IT etc. 
They are a well-off, successful company, regular making millions in profits. 
The company had no work for its 50 other employees and so furloughed them. 
The Finance Director however, had to keep working as he was trying to ensure his business wouldn’t go under completely, and he also continued to pay the HR staff, who had to sort out the furlough paperwork for the other 50 employees and make sure they got their pay, as well keeping employee comms going. 
 

Was it right for the FD to continue to take his £200k salary, whilst the rest of the workforce were furloughed? In your mind, it appears that because he earns so much more than the others and the company is cash-rich he shouldn’t have carried on being paid. 
 

In short - if there is no work for an employee then every single company was entitled to use the furlough scheme - no matter how rich they are. 

Don't worry Slim, so folk are incapable of listening to reason.

Mike Ashley, Philip Green, Tim Whats-his-Spoons and most other high-street giants took advantage of furlough as it was there to be used, it was a scheme to give employees a safety net whilst allowing business owners the opportunity to look at what was necessary to get these people back to work as and when they could.

This fascination with 'footballers' is a false argument as they were working throughout with training plans, physical programs, dietary demands and fines if they came back over weight. Additionally, the catering manager in unlikely to have a resale value running in to the millions.

Those moaning about furlough haven't yet said who they think should have been eligible, just moaning that some people were; who for an argument built of sand-foundations shouldn't have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry said:

Every company in the country was entitled to furlough staff if they were not able to offer them employment at the time. 

You seem very keen to equate ‘footballers wages’ with ‘employees of football clubs’. 
 

If a football club had no work available for its general employees, then it matters not what the players earn, the employees were entitled to furlough. 
 

Probably the same in many companies. Let’s take an example of any company, let’s say they brew cider. They have a finance director who earns £200k per annum and a HR unit which employs 3 people earning a combined £100k. 
They also have 50 other employees, who work in the factory, distribution, sales, advertising, IT etc. 
They are a well-off, successful company, regular making millions in profits. 
The company had no work for its 50 other employees and so furloughed them. 
The Finance Director however, had to keep working as he was trying to ensure his business wouldn’t go under completely, and he also continued to pay the HR staff, who had to sort out the furlough paperwork for the other 50 employees and make sure they got their pay, as well keeping employee comms going. 
 

Was it right for the FD to continue to take his £200k salary, whilst the rest of the workforce were furloughed? In your mind, it appears that because he earns so much more than the others and the company is cash-rich he shouldn’t have carried on being paid. 
 

In short - if there is no work for an employee then every single company was entitled to use the furlough scheme - no matter how rich they are. 

Do you think those two mega clubs weere justified or no? Simple yes or no question here- simple one word answer would be interesting for that bit.

Indeed they were- didn't exactly help the reputation of Liverpool or Tottenham however did it. 

Their fans were up in arms about it- unless it was a vocal minority of course.

I think it's an interesting debate- they got hammered in the court of public opinion, those two clubs. Look it up if you don't remember it.

I'd be interested top see a little feature on it in a national paper, see what below the line commenters think. I won't do anything about it but there could be a story there for a journo- even as part of a roundup. Bet if it was a PL club it might be.

2 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Don't worry Slim, so folk are incapable of listening to reason.

Mike Ashley, Philip Green, Tim Whats-his-Spoons and most other high-street giants took advantage of furlough as it was there to be used, it was a scheme to give employees a safety net whilst allowing business owners the opportunity to look at what was necessary to get these people back to work as and when they could.

This fascination with 'footballers' is a false argument as they were working throughout with training plans, physical programs, dietary demands and fines if they came back over weight. Additionally, the catering manager in unlikely to have a resale value running in to the millions.

Those moaning about furlough haven't yet said who they think should have been eligible, just moaning that some people were; who for an argument built of sand-foundations shouldn't have been.

I think we've done average during this. Average- various big companies got a bit of a hammering over it, but especially Liverpool and Tottenham. We haven't behaved badly but nor have we been exemplary.

I'll be quite happy to critique us and other Championship clubs as and when news comes out about redundancies or otherwise. 

This assumes football carries on as usual during an International pandemic with much reduced income- fees and all. We'll see.

I think quite simply we've done what the bulk of companies and specifically to us. Championship clubs will have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

Yes

A clear and to the point answer!

I  should point out that they got hammered over the decision. Including by a proportion of their own fans it is worth noting. 

I also reiterate that perennial (until this season) non PL Leeds didn't need to go to use furlough or make any redundancies.

I'm assuming they were an outlier however- think all players and coaching staff cut their wages to £5k per week or somesuch or deferred at least. 

As they might say

Side. Before. Self. 

In that respect anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harry said:

It’s incredibly virtuous of him isn’t it! 
 

End of the day, there is currently no work for these people. Sad as it is. A company cannot continue to employ people if it has no income. 
 

As regards refunds. Let’s assume we have 15k season tickets. Let’s assume half of those opted for a refund (and that’s a high assumption). The average refund would’ve been about £90 I believe. So we’re talking less than £7k hit to the club. 
I don’t think that £7k would’ve gone very far had they wanted to keep these staff on. 
 

Think you need to check your maths mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A clear and to the point answer!

I  should point out that they got hammered over the decision. Including by a proportion of their own fans it is worth noting. 

I also reiterate that perennial (until this season) non PL Leeds didn't need to go to use furlough or make any redundancies.

I'm assuming they were an outlier however- think all players and coaching staff cut their wages to £5k per week or somesuch or deferred at least. 

As they might say

Club. Before. Self. 

In that respect anyway.

Doesn't matter the reaction of fans, most fans don't have a good understanding of football finances or how on a knife edge clubs operate when it comes to income and spending. All the general public/football fans see is players being given big wages with no other consideration. The wages relate to their income and how much they can afford, if you factor the income/spend out is it different to smaller companies who may have similar pay disparity but still use the scheme? All companies were permitted to use the furlough scheme and there's no reason every club in the country should have been criticised for using it, football clubs don't tend to operate with masses of reserves so aren't that different.

Frankly other options should have been presented to clubs and I feel the EFL/PL have been lazy in this regard, for example owners should have been told if they're willing they can invest the income the club has lost into the club so the finances act as normal etc obviously owners like Ashley would probably be repulsed by the idea but you get the idea owners like Lansdown could have been willing to invest a bit extra to ensure the financial stability of the club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...