PL clubs taking furlough payment option

[BushBlade]

I think you are a similar age to me (50s). In that case I'd concentrate on trying to save the few remaining brain cells for important stuff like 'where's the bottle opener' rather than ancient Spartan wars.

I'm here for more helpful advice, wellness, life coaching and mindfulness as required....

I know exactly where the bottle opener is. I’m pretty well organised when I need to be. I’m just trying to distract myself by learning about stuff I didn’t know. There’s no footy, there’s only so many episodes of the Sweeney and the Professionals I can watch before I realise it’s just nostalgia and modern TV is just so fucking slow. Look Tommy, I’m not that interested in your relationship with your wife, I just want to see you and Arthur punching people and smashing shit up.

 

[Rodley]

You don't know how much he has available but keep talking about billions. That's not "doing maths", that's guessing. I asked you how much it would cost to keep Virgin afloat and you told me how much it would cost to subsidise the employees wages - two completely different things. What if he spends all his available cash on wages and then needs millions to stop the company going bust? Who saves the company then?

Surely you must have a degree of unease about the taxpayer stepping in to support a company owned by a billionaire who I suspect doesn’t pay UK tax? Plus his recent litigation against the NHS?

On your point here...

“What if he spends all his available cash on wages and then needs millions to stop the company going bust?”

Isn’t that a decision that innumerable SME owners have taken and will be taking in the coming months? Why should Branson be insulated from that? I’d rather taxpayer money went to smaller companies that will contribute to the deficit in 6 months time.

 

[BushBlade]

Surely you must have a degree of unease about the taxpayer stepping in to support a company owned by a billionaire who I suspect doesn’t pay UK tax? Plus his recent litigation against the NHS?

On your point here...

“What if he spends all his available cash on wages and then needs millions to stop the company going bust?”

Isn’t that a decision that innumerable SME owners have taken and will be taking in the coming months? Why should Branson be insulated from that? I’d rather taxpayer money went to smaller companies that will contribute to the deficit in 6 months time.

Is it supporting the company or the workers though? I’m ‘uneasy’ about all of it tbh and I think we really need to review how we tax companies based abroad when all this is done but I suspect Branson’s alternative would be just to lay his staff off.
As for SMEs, I don’t think you can necessarily assume the owners are any different. In the last recession I saw plenty of people quickly made redundant by bosses who cared no more about their staff than Branson does, including a mate and colleague who’d just become a dad.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

I’m not sure any of those are particularly good examples, other than the strike, which is possibly a watershed moment in this country and deserves a more detailed analysis than I’m prepared to do.
The Magna Carta was about empowering barons, not the common man. As was Simon de Montford, who was a bit of a prick imo.
I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘Lancaster’ as there are many options.
If I was going to look at the struggle between rich and poor, I’d look towards the industrial revolution; collectivism and unionism (and the philanthropist movement of the Methodists, Quakers etc, even if many of them seemed to view it more like ‘giving money to a donkey sanctuary, such was the opinion of many philanthropists towards the people they were helping) through to the immediate period following WW2.

I'm mostly thinking of a book called English Rebel by David Horspool (?) who covered everything from the Anglo Saxon Charters through to Scargill. He quite liked De Montford. The Lancaster in question was the one who topped Piers Gaviston.

It's a good read - and as you say, often the rights of ordinary people have come as an (unintended?) byproduct of the Barons looking after no 1 - the the efforts of ordinary people themselves have led nowhere - like the Peasants Revolt.

It's a good read though - perhaps worth a few evenings of your time.

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Isn’t that a decision that innumerable SME owners have taken and will be taking in the coming months? Why should Branson be insulated from that? I’d rather taxpayer money went to smaller companies that will contribute to the deficit in 6 months time.

Virgin airlines going pop would have a bigger impact on the economy in 6 months time when the 8,000 odd employees are out of work.
This money isn't going to Branson or going to insulate him, if they don't get it I would guess they'll put the business into administration/receivership.
Why would he risk his own money for risky and limited returns?
The money would keep those people employed, in jobs, paying tax, and delivering a service to those who want to fly with them.

 

[BushBlade]

I'm mostly thinking of a book called English Rebel by David Horspool (?) who covered everything from the Anglo Saxon Charters through to Scargill. He quite liked De Montford. The Lancaster in question was the one who topped Piers Gaviston.

It's a good read - and as you say, often the rights of ordinary people have come as an (unintended?) byproduct of the Barons looking after no 1 - the the efforts of ordinary people themselves have led nowhere - like the Peasants Revolt.

It's a good read though - perhaps worth a few evenings of your time.

Looks interesting

Redirect Notice

 

[dtblade]

Spurs made a profit last season, despite new stadium costs, of £68 m
Totally out of order that they lay off admin staff and can claim Gov't £

 

[georgebernardshaw]

Spurs made a profit last season, despite new stadium costs, of £68 m
Totally out of order that they lay off admin staff and can claim Gov't £

True, but they now have a loan of £637 million to pay off - not disputing your point, just balancing the situation.

 

[MobileBlade]

Spurs made a profit last season, despite new stadium costs, of £68 m
Totally out of order that they lay off admin staff and can claim Gov't £

Don't mix up profit with operational cash.

 

[YES Blade]

True, but they now have a loan of £637 million to pay off - not disputing your point, just balancing the situation.

They also won't be making a profit this year if they lose their share of the TV money along with lost revenues from matches being cancelled and sponsorship deals.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I do wish I’d done a degree in it. I’m pretty good on post Norman England but I’ve gone back to Mesopotamia and started working forwards, chronologically. There’s a lot of it. I think my brain can only cope with Europe and the Levant, there are two other cradles of civilisation that I haven’t even looked at yet.
Then I watch University Challenge and some smart arse can answer detailed questions on the Peloponnesian Wars and I think ‘I’m never going to get to that level’.

One of my ages of study is early mediaeval Britain, 420-1066, though I'll read about other times and places as well. What annoys me is no matter how much I read, things like dates and names just don't stick. So I can recount things that happened but it sounds completely unbelievable, "there was er, a King, and he sent his army to the North and laid it completely to waste and it took generations to recover. When? Er, fifth century. Or sixth.
Could be seventh."

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Surely you must have a degree of unease about the taxpayer stepping in to support a company owned by a billionaire who I suspect doesn’t pay UK tax? Plus his recent litigation against the NHS?

On your point here...

“What if he spends all his available cash on wages and then needs millions to stop the company going bust?”

Isn’t that a decision that innumerable SME owners have taken and will be taking in the coming months? Why should Branson be insulated from that? I’d rather taxpayer money went to smaller companies that will contribute to the deficit in 6 months time.

There is a wider debate to be had about wealth and how companies are run, what responsibilities owners have, etc. But that's politics, really, and you can't suddenly take a unique situation and start throwing out wild accusations. Especially without knowing all the facts.

It is very easy to blame the rich for just about anything, but we've seen how countries end up when they do away with the rich and the well off. There is a clear trade off between having a thriving economy and allowing people to get rich - and keep their wealth. You can't flick a switch on a whim.

Overall I am uneasy about the distribution of wealth across the world and the gap between rich and poor. I am uncomfortable with things like football players' salaries. Or how companies can be sent into receivership whilst directors walz off with bulging wallets. And so on and so on. I am just a little cautious about frothing over "the rich" when it suits, especially targeting one or two people without knowing the details.

As for your last point, a lot of companies will be facing some hard decisions, not just now but for at least a year as the knock on effects are felt. No one can really judge which companies will better benefit from taxpayer money, or are taking advantage, or are making the wrong decisions, or will be best place to contribute when we all get back to normal. There are too many factors, so the government just has to make a general rule and let everyone eligible apply.

 

[SwissBlade]

If you’re a business you take the most financially efficient method from as early as possible.

 

[Canterbury Blade]

They won't do that and there is a simple reason why not. If you take more than 50% pay cut then you are effectively put on short-time. There are legal limits around how long a person can be put on short time for (this is different to laying off which is what Furlough is doing - short time would supersede Furlough therefore if you are Furloughed and your wage is less than 50% (ie you earn more than £60,000.01 effectively), then you will be on short time not Furlough. If you exceed the legal limit for short-time - which will almost certainly happen in the current situation - then you are entitled to claim redundancy, even on a fixed term contract (which footballers are). So you have to imagine that these footballers, who cost millions of pounds, are suddenly available for free transfer. Clubs will therefore not Furlough players and no player will be allowed to take more than 50% pay cut.

I do some part time work for a major sports club who play nationally and have a few international sportsmen. Today we had a Zoom furlough meeting. The club may not have interpreted it right but non playing people were told;

1. That furlough was voluntary (other option would likely be redundancy..)
2. Whilst furloughed no paid work could be done for the sports club. It’s effectively leave of absence.
3. This preserves the future of the club and retains the future employment of those affected

So, IF that’s right.

1. May explain the players need to take A voluntary wage reduction as for the reasons outlined above furlough won’t really work for highly paid sportsmen.
2. Again may explain why the club doesn’t want to furlough players as then any return to fitness work, training, preparation, team building etc would be a right nightmare if they have been unable to do any form of ‘work’ linked to the club. The professionals at my sports club we’re having a separate meeting, linked to their unions and the sports national governing body to understand this position.

I thus agree with the above and think that anything any players do will be totally voluntary. They won’t be furloughed at our level.

So, let’s see what kind of men and indeed leadership, we have at the Lane.

 

[Rodley]

There is a wider debate to be had about wealth and how companies are run, what responsibilities owners have, etc. But that's politics, really, and you can't suddenly take a unique situation and start throwing out wild accusations. Especially without knowing all the facts.

It is very easy to blame the rich for just about anything, but we've seen how countries end up when they do away with the rich and the well off. There is a clear trade off between having a thriving economy and allowing people to get rich - and keep their wealth. You can't flick a switch on a whim.

Overall I am uneasy about the distribution of wealth across the world and the gap between rich and poor. I am uncomfortable with things like football players' salaries. Or how companies can be sent into receivership whilst directors walz off with bulging wallets. And so on and so on. I am just a little cautious about frothing over "the rich" when it suits, especially targeting one or two people without knowing the details.

As for your last point, a lot of companies will be facing some hard decisions, not just now but for at least a year as the knock on effects are felt. No one can really judge which companies will better benefit from taxpayer money, or are taking advantage, or are making the wrong decisions, or will be best place to contribute when we all get back to normal. There are too many factors, so the government just has to make a general rule and let everyone eligible apply.

It’s not a debate of too high a concentration of wealth. It’s a moral debate about paying your fair share of tax. If we’re bailing out companies, Branson should be at the back of queue IMHO in terms of eligibility.

 

[mancunianblade]

One thing people seem to be over looking too (not this thread) is a lot of the figures banded about are annual figures, the monthly breakdowns are of course a 12th of that, some people spend way too much energy trying to get out of paying what they owe.. people won’t forget this..

With the current feel good factor around the club, the fact majority of the players Are underpaid (Tin hat on) compared to majority of players at this level and the fact Wilder has form for defending backroom staff at all levels as well as praising their input to the cause I don’t see us pulling such trick for what could be a few months.

 

[Akinbiyi]

Barca players have taken a temporary 70% pay cut

Dortmund and Bayern players have taken a pay cut

Juventus players have froze their salaries for 4 months

Meanwhile, Spurs, Newcastle and Norwich...: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...yers-cash-before-cutting-stars-wages-11966963

 

[Hamburg Blade]

It’s not a debate of too high a concentration of wealth. It’s a moral debate about paying your fair share of tax. If we’re bailing out companies, Branson should be at the back of queue IMHO in terms of eligibility.

No that wasn't the debate that was being had. The debate was whether Branson should pay his employees the shortfall rather than the government because he's rich.
Like I said in my post, there's a different debate to be had about how companies are allowed to be run, but that's a political discussion and you can't switch things around to suit the circumstances. You can't mix the two issues and base priority for government support on a level of tax paid by owners/shareholders/directors. Like I also said, there are too many factors, what about a company who's owners pay all their tax, but treat their employees like dirt? Or don't have the right diversity? Or are sexist? You could make a long list and then you'd need a commissar to go around checking off which companies are approved and which ones not.
The time to sort out the laws on tax are not at the moment you put together a rescue package in an emergency.

 

[Tarqs]

Barca players have taken a temporary 70% pay cut

Dortmund and Bayern players have taken a pay cut

Juventus players have froze their salaries for 4 months

Meanwhile, Spurs, Newcastle and Norwich...: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...yers-cash-before-cutting-stars-wages-11966963

Yeah that's a disgrace.

The PFA has a meeting with the EFL and EPL this morning....and absolutely sweet fa came out of it.

However, this isn't all down to the clubs, the players should be taking some responsibility too. If they gave 10% back over the next few months it would save the necessity of furlough.

Leeds have done it, I'm very surprised they appear to be a band of three (Brum and another).

 

[YES Blade]

Yeah that's a disgrace.

The PFA has a meeting with the EFL and EPL this morning....and absolutely sweet fa came out of it.

However, this isn't all down to the clubs, the players should be taking some responsibility too. If they gave 10% back over the next few months it would save the necessity of furlough.

Leeds have done it, I'm very surprised they appear to be a band of three (Brum and another).

So what should be the criteria for using furlough? Loads of companies up and down the country will be using it, why shouldn't football? I agree that players and directors should take a pay cut to help the clubs during this difficult time, but they should be allowed to also furlough staff and ideally top up their money to 100% of salary.

 

[Tarqs]

So what should be the criteria for using furlough? Loads of companies up and down the country will be using it, why shouldn't football? I agree that players and directors should take a pay cut to help the clubs during this difficult time, but they should be allowed to also furlough staff and ideally top up their money to 100% of salary.

You're missing the point there, they are furloughing staff (basically needing help), whilst on the other hand paying players 250k a week.

Any football club furloughing staff should receive a transfer ban

 

[Akinbiyi]

You're missing the point there, they are furloughing staff (basically needing help), whilst on the other hand paying players 250k a week.

Any football club furloughing staff should receive a transfer ban

They're taking advantage of a government scheme intended to help those who need it, not TV money bankrolled organisations which pull in hundreds of millions, as you say paying playing staff £250k a week

You're bang on, great shout

 

[Grizzly blade]

Few points of mine.

1. if I were earning the sums some of these footballers are earning, on top of many other executives I would have a very sour taste in my mouth while many folk are looking like losing jobs, companies going bust and the economy going to the wall. I would be looking to negotiate a temporary wage reduction in a heartbeat....or trying to find a way to see a portion of wages benefit others.

2. I thought this scheme was a loan? So businesses can keep staff and hopefully still be there at the end of all this to resume trading.

3. Totally agree that companies looking to use the scheme should be made to look at ALL other options BEFORE applying for the furlough scheme. These should include dividend scrapping, wage cuts, bonus cancellations, and other means to raise their own revenue. It’s frankly outrageous clubs paying some staff literally millions and won’t take a cut then use the scheme due to threats to other staff in standard salaries.

 

[MobileBlade]

They're taking advantage of a government scheme intended to help those who need it, not TV money bankrolled organisations which pull in hundreds of millions, as you say paying playing staff £250k a week

You're bang on, great shout

Except whilst the game is on hold there is no tv money coming in.

 

[MobileBlade]

You're missing the point there, they are furloughing staff (basically needing help), whilst on the other hand paying players 250k a week.

Any football club furloughing staff should receive a transfer ban

As explained playing staff cannot be furloughed. They ask them for a cut of wages but it can't be more than 50%

 

[Tarqs]

As explained playing staff cannot be furloughed. They ask them for a cut of wages but it can't be more than 50%

Unless voluntarily, like some examples.

 

[MobileBlade]

Unless voluntarily, like some examples.

It would need to be voluntary. They would be varying their contract and that needs agreement of both parties. There are some basic employment law matters at play here. The UK laws are different from the European laws when it comes to wage deductions.

 

[YES Blade]

You're missing the point there, they are furloughing staff (basically needing help), whilst on the other hand paying players 250k a week.

Any football club furloughing staff should receive a transfer ban

I don't think anyone has come out and said they won't take a pay cut, not doubt in the coming days/weeks something will happen on the player pay cut front.

Premier League’s £7.6bn contribution to UK economy

Premier League clubs generated £3.3 billion in tax revenue and contributed £7.6 billion to the economy during the 2016-17 season according to analysis published today. The clubs are likely to use the findings to push for new immigration arrangements that give them freedom to recruit players from all

www.thetimes.co.uk

The government receive £3.3 Billion in tax from the Premier League and their players, the government can't have it both ways, take the tax money from the clubs/players and then not allow them to get a bit back when revenues are going to drop.

 

[Tarqs]

I don't think anyone has come out and said they won't take a pay cut, not doubt in the coming days/weeks something will happen on the player pay cut front.

Premier League’s £7.6bn contribution to UK economy

Premier League clubs generated £3.3 billion in tax revenue and contributed £7.6 billion to the economy during the 2016-17 season according to analysis published today. The clubs are likely to use the findings to push for new immigration arrangements that give them freedom to recruit players from all

www.thetimes.co.uk

The government receive £3.3 Billion in tax from the Premier League and their players, the government can't have it both ways, take the tax money from the clubs/players and then not allow them to get a bit back when revenues are going to drop.

People won't say that though, but they're hardly fast in coming forward saying they will.

The government are applying furlough rules to stop small/medium businesses going bankrupt that rely on revenue streams. The Prem clubs have had their revenue stream for this season.

 

[YES Blade]

People won't say that though, but they're hardly fast in coming forward saying they will.

The government are applying furlough rules to stop small/medium businesses going bankrupt that rely on revenue streams. The Prem clubs have had their revenue stream for this season.

All companies regardless of size rely on revenue streams. The alternative might be either furlough staff or lay them off, which is better?

Not all big companies are sat on mountains of cash allowing them to continue to pay staff and other overheads whilst no money is coming in.