PL clubs taking furlough payment option

[Tarqs]

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.

We're not talking about all big companies, we're talking about Premier League football clubs, who have been paid their TV monies up front for the season. Most business rely on day to day revenue, which they're no longer receiving.

 

[YES Blade]

We're not talking about all big companies, we're talking about Premier League football clubs, who have been paid their TV monies up front for the season. Most business rely on day to day revenue, which they're no longer receiving.

They don’t, clubs get money when they appear in a live game, also the prize money comes from TV money, the season hasn’t finished so no club has that. What about match day revenues?

What do you think Sky, BT and foreign broadcasters will say if the season isn’t completed? Do you think they’ll happily let the clubs keep their money when they’re losing subscribers in droves?

 

[Akinbiyi]

They don’t, clubs get money when they appear in a live game, also the prize money comes from TV money, the season hasn’t finished so no club has that. What about match day revenues?

What do you think Sky, BT and foreign broadcasters will say if the season isn’t completed? Do you think they’ll happily let the clubs keep their money when they’re losing subscribers in droves?

PL clubs don’t really rely on match day revenue or live games. Championship clubs get paid per live game, PL clubs don’t.

The season will be completed. There’s no suggestion otherwise.

It’s nonsense

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Tarqs]

They don’t, clubs get money when they appear in a live game, also the prize money comes from TV money, the season hasn’t finished so no club has that. What about match day revenues?

What do you think Sky, BT and foreign broadcasters will say if the season isn’t completed? Do you think they’ll happily let the clubs keep their money when they’re losing subscribers in droves?

Nope, which is why it'll be completed.

 

[YES Blade]

PL clubs don’t really rely on match day revenue or live games. Championship clubs get paid per live game, PL clubs don’t.

The season will be completed. There’s no suggestion otherwise.

It’s nonsense

Of course they rely on match day revenues, why did Spurs build a new stadium if that revenue wasn’t important?

Premier League value of central payments to clubs 2018/19

PL announces broadcast and commercial revenues of 20 top-flight clubs for the 2018/19 season

www.premierleague.com

See link, clubs get paid “facility fees” based on a match being broadcast.

The season could finish behind closed doors or extended meaning extra player wages. No club is making money out of this situation.

 

[Tarqs]

Of course they rely on match day revenues, why did Spurs build a new stadium if that revenue wasn’t important?

Premier League value of central payments to clubs 2018/19

PL announces broadcast and commercial revenues of 20 top-flight clubs for the 2018/19 season

www.premierleague.com

See link, clubs get paid “facility fees” based on a match being broadcast.

The season could finish behind closed doors or extended meaning extra player wages. No club is making money out of this situation.

Season tickets.

Which have already been sold.

 

[YES Blade]

Season tickets.

Which have already been sold.

Match day tickets? Cup tickets? Corporate hospitality? Food and Beer sold at the kiosks? etc etc etc.

 

[Tarqs]

Match day tickets? Cup tickets? Corporate hospitality? Food and Beer sold at the kiosks? etc etc etc.

Do they profit from food and drink? Considering the wages they have to pay etc?
Match day tickets are few and far between, make no difference at all to those clubs.

Cup tickets? What cups are they left in?

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

Shifting the blame onto about 100 premier league players the state of him

 

[wavy-blade]

The fuckin footballers should be helping the people that look after them on in this ONE OFF OCCASION , the canteen staff , cleaners , staff that do their wages , clean their kit , and wipe their big spoiled arses !

 

[Rodders]

I have a smidge of sympathy for the footballers here; their clubs have thrown them right under the bus by furloughing staff without any mention of having any discussions with players - to be fair, players do loads for charity and I don’t think many of them would actually have an issue with a pay cut but it’s all been taken out of their hands to a large extent.

 

[FallowfieldBlade]

The fuckin footballers should be helping the people that look after them on in this ONE OFF OCCASION , the canteen staff , cleaners , staff that do their wages , clean their kit , and wipe their big spoiled arses !

It’s not the players it’s the chairman’s.

One premier league player will pay as much tax in 2 months more than most will in there life stop blaming PL players

 

[wavy-blade]

It’s not the players it’s the chairman’s.

One premier league player will pay as much tax in 2 months more than most will in there life stop blaming PL players

Ohh my heart bleeds for them must be so hard earning £ 100,000 a week and thats just the lower end ffs

 

[MobileBlade]

We're not talking about all big companies, we're talking about Premier League football clubs, who have been paid their TV monies up front for the season. Most business rely on day to day revenue, which they're no longer receiving.

Have they had their money upfront? How would that happen when half of it is based on final league position and number of tv appearances?

 

[YES Blade]

Aren’t the treasury in danger of being worse off by players taking a pay cut?

Spurs have furloughed 550 non playing staff, which works out at a maximum of £1.375m the government will have to pay out (minus tax and NI which furloughed staff will still pay)

Spurs player wage bill is apparently £148m per year or £12.3m a month. If the players take a 70% pay cut as has happened in Spain, that’s works out at £3.8m of lost tax to HMRC based on 45% tax rate. So that’s £2.5m the treasury will lose.

Unless the pay cut is going to a charity or the NHS?

 

[Tarqs]

Have they had their money upfront? How would that happen when half of it is based on final league position and number of tv appearances?

Not quite, the bottom club is guaranteed 100m irrespective. The tv money has been paid up front for a contractual length of time.

Either that, or we're fucked as we've been spending the cash which I assume is leveraged against that income.

 

[MobileBlade]

Not quite, the bottom club is guaranteed 100m irrespective. The tv money has been paid up front for a contractual length of time.

Either that, or we're fucked as we've been spending the cash which I assume is leveraged against that income.

They don't get it up front though because the tv companies dont pay upfront. They get some payments in trenches through the season but the bulk is paid at the end of the season. Its why clubs take out loans against the income to ease cash flows.

 

[Bladesway]

Forcing players to take a pay cut is on the agenda of the meeting later this week.

I agree they should pay their non playing staff, especially at the lower end of the pay scale. As you pointed out it’s pittance compared to the playing staffs wages.

I don’t think a lot of clubs are as flush with cash as we think, spurs with the new stadium, we have spent money they hasn’t (and may never) come in on Berge etc.

They are a fuck load more flush than I am. It’s a fucking disgrace how quickly these cash tanks have jumped onto an easy way out of paying the decent hardworking staff. They could easily cut players wages and pay the staff purely from that. Even with our club in it I still hate the Premier League.

 

[RMBlade]

They are a fuck load more flush than I am. It’s a fucking disgrace how quickly these cash tanks have jumped onto an easy way out of paying the decent hardworking staff. They could easily cut players wages and pay the staff purely from that. Even with our club in it I still hate the Premier League.

They can’t just cut players wages. It has to be mutually agreed. If Spurs say to Kane for example we are cutting your wages by 50%, then they have breached his contract and he is well within his legal right to terminate his contract a go somewhere else, meaning spurs have lost a £100m asset.

Players are the ones who should be volunteering to reduce their wages (like Eddie Howe has done). I think media/public pressure will force players into it to be honest.

 

[RealMcCoy]

I think Wilder has always recognised the contribution of ALL club staff. I’d guess he has in input to SUFC’s approach here.

 

[wavy-blade]

Hold on a minute i think our players need a pay rise

 

[Sharrowblade]

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.

Not quite CB, furlough is not voluntary, its not up to the employee to say I want to go on furlough, i.e not go to work, but still get paid.

Its not a scheme for the employee, its primarily a scheme for the employer.

Its a scheme for companies to retain staff if they are forced to either close or are struggling due to the current circumstances,
or there is no work for them to do but want to ensure they keep their staff for future employment when things get back to some kind or normality,
…..or they can't ensure that their staff can safely stick to government guidelines..

Its not meant as some workers have been made to believe, that its a free pass to have some sort of fully paid jolly by remaining at home doing nothing.

Your second point is correct. If you are furloughed, you cannot work for your employer. A company which abuses this is beneath contempt and if found guilty would be subject to a big fine.

Your third point is also correct and is the main ideology behind the scheme.

The problem with this scheme is that it has not been explained clearly to employers and employees by the government, there's been little clarification, and there are companies out there who will be quick to exploit it. Whether football clubs are guilty of this is evidently open to debate. I'm still trying to work out how Spurs have 550 non playing staff.

 

[wavy-blade]

Hold on a minute i think our players need a pay rise
View attachment 75784

How come we have the lowest revenue? Lower than Bournemouth’s even ?

 

[Canterbury Blade]

Let’s talk about an imaginary club. Shall we call it New Norpursmouth?....

I’m no expert on football’s operating model, though I bet some on here are. I wonder;

1. How many people who work for the club in some way but may not be legally qualifying as employees (perhaps stewards and programme sellers?) won’t qualify for furlough.
2. How many firms are subcontracted to do valuable work for a club (caterers and cleaning?) but won’t get the club’s furlough?
3. How many firms income is affected by the football clubs not playing (food makers, Beavertown, programme printers?) who won’t qualify for the club’s furlough?
4. How many people working at a club are self employed?
5. Will the club look after these people in any way?

Yes, business is tough at times, but im not sure it is morally right that the higher paid at New Norpursmouth retain their whopping salaries, whilst smaller firms and people who work at or rely on the club (but may not be direct employees) struggle and then the Govt scheme is used so selectively?

It seems as if those who have been paid the most and who will resume their earnings after this is over are being protected by the club. Yet many others who may not survive or will be impacted on for years to come (which will affect us all in higher prices, more tax payments, less choice, greater monopoly etc) are not being looked after by the club.

Just seems wrong really and there should be some assessment process by those firms and clubs seeking to furlough. Are they really going to close, Is there really no other way, is everyone being furloughed and has all their money gone?

Mind I did overhear a conversation the other day as I walked past White Carrow Park. Some bloke in a Bentley stopped and said..

“Sorry mate you aren’t selected by me to continue to work but here’s some Taxpayers cash, by the way do you want to do some voluntary work to count my private 3 million quid bonus to check its all there?”

 

[Bladesway]

They can’t just cut players wages. It has to be mutually agreed. If Spurs say to Kane for example we are cutting your wages by 50%, then they have breached his contract and he is well within his legal right to terminate his contract a go somewhere else, meaning spurs have lost a £100m asset.

Players are the ones who should be volunteering to reduce their wages (like Eddie Howe has done). I think media/public pressure will force players into it to be honest.

There are enough who will take a cut that stop this being a problem. If you are telling me that the Premier League isn’t a cesspool of greed then that is what I have a real problem with.

 

[RMBlade]

There are enough who will take a cut that stop this being a problem. If you are telling me that the Premier League isn’t a cesspool of greed then that is what I have a real problem with.

I agree I think there will be, however so far only Eddie Howe has volunteered (as far as I am aware)

 

[Rodley]

How come we have the lowest revenue? Lower than Bournemouth’s even ?

Ours and the other promoted teams are last years figures.

 

[nicksufc]

Absolutely incredible that clubs who rake in hundreds of millions in revenue a year, and players who rake in hundreds of thousands of pounds a week, are actually being defended here. There is no defence for either party here.

 

[Rodley]

Absolutely incredible that clubs who rake in hundreds of millions in revenue a year, and players who rake in hundreds of thousands of pounds a week, are actually being defended here. There is no defence for either party here.

I find the Treasury loss of revenue a particularly laughable angle.