[Football] Liverpool are the next club to announce furloughing non playing staff.

[wellquickwoody]

I think there is a confusion here. Some are talking of 'pay cuts'. Someone has mentioned Gordon Taylor defending why there should be no 'pay cuts'.

If footballers take a pay cut they will be the first group in society to do so. Nobody else is taking a pay cut.

But people are being furloughed, or laid off. A different thing, and something, when done for necessity rather than as a crooked act, that would not be obviated by 'pay cuts'.

It has been pointed out time and time again that if clubs cut payers wages the only beneficiary will be the owners, on their quarantined yachts in the med. The players lose out, and (more importantly) the treasury loses out. Less money to buy medicines, to put it bluntly.

I wrote somewhere the other day about how the English use ambiguous language as a way of confounding foreigners. The trouble is we also confound ourselves. 'Pay cut' being a prime example.

For the final time, hopefully, the players will find some way of diverting some of their massive income towards the COVID war. They will do it using their income. They will not be agreeing to a pay cut. Why the absolute **** should they?

However I am talking about the top half of the PL. At some point, lower down the pyramid, clubs will genuinely start to find they have a major cash flow issue. As Wrighty and others said on R5 yesterday, most clubs are not cash rich, and they operate in a prune juice economy. That means they will have to furlough. Genuine unavoidable furlough of all playing staff, though.

Or worse. I can see lots of smaller clubs going under. How are the likes of Preston, Bolton, Swindon, you name it, going to survive with no income for the rest of the year?

I am not suggesting a pay cut that goes to the club owner. The players have already turned that idea down, foolishly in my opinion as they should be working with their employers in damage limitation. They should have come to an agreement where pay cuts were ring fenced for those lower down the food chain.

I have suggested players coming together to donate a portion of their TAKE HOME pay to others. I suggested maybe £15k of our club captains money to save the jobs of perhaps four people that he sees every week in his working life. That is £15k of a minimum of £125k take home per month.

Think about it, the world is pretty much currently fxxked, is £15k of £125k too much to ask to save your colleagues jobs?

 

[Springal]

http://twitter.com/AndyNaylorBHAFC/status/1247405418923597825

So we’ve essentially furloughed the players until 1st May, but still talking about furloughing non playing staff with government support? Mmmhmmm

 

[wellquickwoody]

http://twitter.com/AndyNaylorBHAFC/status/1247405418923597825

So we’ve essentially furloughed the players until 1st May, but still talking about furloughing non playing staff with government support? Mmmhmmm

The big question is ‘are they still receiving full wages from the club?’.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am not suggesting a pay cut that goes to the club owner. The players have already turned that idea down, foolishly in my opinion as they should be working with their employers in damage limitation. They should have come to an agreement where pay cuts were ring fenced for those lower down the food chain.

I have suggested players coming together to donate a portion of their TAKE HOME pay to others. I suggested maybe £15k of our club captains money to save the jobs of perhaps four people that he sees every week in his working life. That is £15k of a minimum of £125k take home per month.

Think about it, the world is pretty much currently fxxked, is £15k of £125k too much to ask to save your colleagues jobs?

My point wasn't specifically directed at you. I just happened to make it after reading your post. I actually agree with your proposals and I expect that the players will cook up some sort of arrangement along those very lines; once all this talk about 'pay cuts' is kicked into the long grass.

On a separate tack, listening to Chris Sutton last night, his disdain for Gordon Taylor is limitless.

 

[pasty]

I think there is a confusion here. Some are talking of 'pay cuts'. Someone has mentioned Gordon Taylor defending why there should be no 'pay cuts'.

If footballers take a pay cut they will be the first group in society to do so. Nobody else is taking a pay cut.

But people are being furloughed, or laid off. A different thing, and something, when done for necessity rather than as a crooked act, that would not be obviated by 'pay cuts'.

It has been pointed out time and time again that if clubs cut payers wages the only beneficiary will be the owners, on their quarantined yachts in the med. The players lose out, and (more importantly) the treasury loses out. Less money to buy medicines, to put it bluntly.

I wrote somewhere the other day about how the English use ambiguous language as a way of confounding foreigners. The trouble is we also confound ourselves. 'Pay cut' being a prime example.

For the final time, hopefully, the players will find some way of diverting some of their massive income towards the COVID war. They will do it using their income. They will not be agreeing to a pay cut. Why the absolute **** should they?

However I am talking about the top half of the PL. At some point, lower down the pyramid, clubs will genuinely start to find they have a major cash flow issue. As Wrighty and others said on R5 yesterday, most clubs are not cash rich, and they operate in a prune juice economy. That means they will have to furlough. Genuine unavoidable furlough of all playing staff, though.

Or worse. I can see lots of smaller clubs going under. How are the likes of Preston, Bolton, Swindon, you name it, going to survive with no income for the rest of the year?

How would define a "pay cut" though? I have had my working week reduced to 30 hours from 37.5, and as such am being paid 20% less. Technically I guess that is not a pay cut as such as I am doing less hours and still being paid the same "per hour", but I am salaried as opposed to being on a hourly rate.

Footballers meanwhile are basically doing sod all yet still getting full whack.

 

[rippleman]

The big question is ‘are they still receiving full wages from the club?’.

We won't know. The employer has the option to pay 80% of wages and recover that amount under the Job Retention Scheme (JRS) (plus the employers National Insurance and the basic 3% workplace pension contributions) or to still pay the wages in full and recover 80% (plus the employers National Insurance and the basic 3% workplace pension contributions).

I entirely agree that the players should be subsidising the lower paid workers at the club. Surely they can manage to scrape by on 30-40K a week can't they?

But when it comes to furloughing the players themselves the MAXIMUM amount an employer can recover through the JRS is the LOWER of 80% of their monthly wages or £2,500. So the club would not benefit to a significant degree from the JRS by furloughing the players.

Now whether the club should be negotiating a reduction in wages for the players (who are, after all, doing absolutely nothing unlike many who are still working or working from home) or whether the players should voluntarily be donating a significant proportion of their wages to AITC, NHS or whoever are different matters entirely.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

How would define a "pay cut" though? I have had my working week reduced to 30 hours from 37.5, and as such am being paid 20% less. Technically I guess that is not a pay cut as such as I am doing less hours and still being paid the same "per hour", but I am salaried as opposed to being on a hourly rate.

Footballers meanwhile are basically doing sod all yet still getting full whack.

My point was mainly about ambiguous use of language resulting in confusion and rancour. As demonstrated by you (and understandably so).

It doesn't matter how I define a pay cut. The point is that there is no common understanding of what it is, so whoever is demanding that players take a 'pay cut' is simply adding to the confusion.

For what it's worth, a pay cut to me is where you are paid less for doing the same work, not paid less for doing less work (pro rata) like you. However, others might argue that if you are paid less for doing less work this is also a pay cut. The same people, however, would probably not say they are receiving a pay increase if they do some overtime and earn more money, pro rata, though*, illustrating the lack of logic associated with the careless use of the terminology.

I am not sure what the word is (or even if there is a word) for when you are paid the same rate but your hours are reduced. I assume you'd need to be on a zero hours contract (or no contract) for that to be legal (and is a 'no contract' contract itself even legal?).

As for footballers doing sod all and getting full whack, yes, that's a bit weird. But I'd not propose a 'pay cut' because nobody would know what I meant!

Anyway, at my age I should have got used to the idea that half the arguments we have in the UK are based on individuals having different understanding of the words and expressions they use, and no realisation of this till it slowly dawns on them hours, days or weeks later . But I am only a part-time pedant, mostly angry at the confusion but lacking any workable solution to it. Would never happen in Germany, though. Calling [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION]!

*Unless paid time and a half for overtime - that would be a 'pay increase' for sure. Or would it?

 

[SAC]

I think there is a confusion here. Some are talking of 'pay cuts'. Someone has mentioned Gordon Taylor defending why there should be no 'pay cuts'.

If footballers take a pay cut they will be the first group in society to do so. Nobody else is taking a pay cut.

I've taken a pay cut and I know quite a few others that work for companies who have had their pay cut.

 

[pasty]

My point was mainly about ambiguous use of language resulting in confusion and rancour. As demonstrated by you (and understandably so).

It doesn't matter how I define a pay cut. The point is that there is no common understanding of what it is, so whoever is demanding that players take a 'pay cut' is simply adding to the confusion.

For what it's worth, a pay cut to me is where you are paid less for doing the same work, not paid less for doing less work (pro rata) like you. However, others might argue that if you are paid less for doing less work this is also a pay cut. The same people, however, would probably not say they are receiving a pay increase if they do some overtime and earn more money, pro rata, though*, illustrating the lack of logic associated with the careless use of the terminology.

I am not sure what the word is (or even if there is a word) for when you are paid the same rate but your hours are reduced. I assume you'd need to be on a zero hours contract (or no contract) for that to be legal (and is a 'no contract' contract itself even legal?).

As for footballers doing sod all and getting full whack, yes, that's a bit weird. But I'd not propose a 'pay cut' because nobody would know what I meant!

Anyway, at my age I should have got used to the idea that half the arguments we have in the UK are based on individuals having different understanding of the words and expressions they use, and no realisation of this till it slowly dawns on them hours, days or weeks later . But I am only a part-time pedant, mostly angry at the confusion but lacking any workable solution to it. Would never happen in Germany, though. Calling [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION]!

*Unless paid time and a half for overtime - that would be a 'pay increase' for sure. Or would it?

My head hurts

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I've taken a pay cut and I know quite a few others that work for companies who have had their pay cut.

What do you mean by 'pay cut' though? Less money for the same work (a 'pay cut' in my understanding), or less work resulting in less money (not a pay cut as such; if you suggest this is a 'pay cut' then being sacked, changing job to one that pays less, and retiring are all 'pay cuts')?

Did you take a pay cut because your employer can't afford to pay you, or in order that your employer can divert some of your salary to help pay for the NHS? All this discussion about footballers' pay is in the mistaken assumption that if clubs play players less the club can then divert the money to the NHS.

Sorry to sound pedantic with my reply, above, but I only wanted to make the point about the outrage that players aren't offering to take a 'pay cut'. I am not suggesting that vast numbers of people aren't being shafted one way or another because of COVID.

 

[Glawstergull]

In the current business climate all of our staff have agreed to a 20% reduction in their salary. Some are on furlough through no fault of their own. Some are classified vulnerable some are not essential. This allows the business to continue to trade on a turnover of 40-50% normal turnover. We have highish overheads that are fixed. Only by this sacrifice are “we all in it together”. We hope to protect all jobs. To provide a minimum service we need 40% of staff today. We also see that this strategy gets us through a medium term. We intend to return as much of the 20% as we can if turnover returns sufficiently. For what it’s worth I will take 20% of my income until we are thru this.

 

[SAC]

What do you mean by 'pay cut' though? Less money for the same work (a 'pay cut' in my understanding), or less work resulting in less money (not a pay cut as such; if you suggest this is a 'pay cut' then being sacked, changing job to one that pays less, and retiring are all 'pay cuts')?

Did you take a pay cut because your employer can't afford to pay you, or in order that your employer can divert some of your salary to help pay for the NHS? All this discussion about footballers' pay is in the mistaken assumption that if clubs play players less the club can then divert the money to the NHS.

Sorry to sound pedantic with my reply, above, but I only wanted to make the point about the outrage that players aren't offering to take a 'pay cut'. I am not suggesting that vast numbers of people aren't being shafted one way or another because of COVID.

Where I work, a company of 12, two were instantly made redundant, threee have been put on the government scheme and of the rest anyone on over £40k takes a pay cut. The money goes to stop the company making too much of a loss. I don't mind so long as the company agrees to pay this back if they start to make a profit again (still under discussion).

Personally, I don't think PL footballers should take a pay cut and it's up to them if they either suport the non playing staff or donate to the NHS. If the government wants / needs more, they should increase the higher rate of tax to 65% (they probably will at some point anyway). Higher paid players in the lower leagues can voluneteer to defer part of their wage until the club can afford it (as Dirty Leeds players have done, I believe).

If no money is coming in for many months then PL players may need to be asked to defer or cut their wage but I don't think we are close to this yet.

 

[Springal]

Sunderland has put its first-team players, contracted academy players & backroom staff on furlough. Wow !

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Where I work, a company of 12, two were instantly made redundant, threee have been put on the government scheme and of the rest anyone on over £40k takes a pay cut. The money goes to stop the company making too much of a loss. I don't mind so long as the company agrees to pay this back if they start to make a profit again (still under discussion).

Personally, I don't think PL footballers should take a pay cut and it's up to them if they either suport the non playing staff or donate to the NHS. If the government wants / needs more, they should increase the higher rate of tax to 65% (they probably will at some point anyway). Higher paid players in the lower leagues can voluneteer to defer part of their wage until the club can afford it (as Dirty Leeds players have done, I believe).

If no money is coming in for many months then PL players may need to be asked to defer or cut their wage but I don't think we are close to this yet.

OK. Cheers for that.

 

[Triggaaar]

Calling [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION]!

My head hurts

I wasn't even needed

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Sunderland has put its first-team players, contracted academy players & backroom staff on furlough. Wow !

How does that even work?

Surely it means they can’t even go for a run as that’s technically work?

 

[Wardy's twin]

I would not DARE ask TB for £30-50 million. I am asking Lewis Dunk, who takes home in excess of £125k per month, to perhaps pay the wages of four members of non playing staff. Their earnings would probably not total more than £15k. Why am I asking Lewis Dunk (and his colleagues) to do this? Because in any other industry the highest earners producing Jack shit right now would have been laid off.

It is just an act of decency, of humanity, rather than looking like an utter arse, and that is being very polite. There is a big difference between accrued wealth, which is not in question, and current earnings by the way.

I don't disagree with what you are saying but the very rich (either accrued or current income) also need to be in the debate not just footballers.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sunderland has put its first-team players, contracted academy players & backroom staff on furlough. Wow !

I wondered which club would be first. A club that has rapidly tumbled down the divisions while still carrying one or two players on unfeasible salaries would have been my guess....

 

[Springal]

I wondered which club would be first. A club that has rapidly tumbled down the divisions while still carrying one or two players on unfeasible salaries would have been my guess....

I think Crewe have too. To be honest I can't blame any business from claiming it. I know plenty of big corps that are for staff that genuinely can no longer do their jobs.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think Crewe have too. To be honest I can't blame any business from claiming it. I know plenty of big corps that are for staff that genuinely can no longer do their jobs.

Indeed. My point, though, was this is likely for genuine need, as opposed to the piss taking by Spurs, Norwich, Bournmouth and (for a while) Liverpool, absurdly furloughing those in recipt of less than 5% of the total wage bill while leaving the players on full pay (that's what they did, isn't it?).