#PlayersTogether

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?




Think this now ends all the talk of 30% wage cuts for the players. Let them all donate an amount into the charity. Can imagine some of the big earners in the premier league will be putting huge amounts in.

Overall relieves pressure with this 30% nonsense, NHS get money and then that’s it sorted with. PFA can then relax and it’s one less problem during this pandemic.
 
Unfortunately, to properly fund a health service you need higher taxes like in Germany. The UK were offered that option only 4 months ago and comprehensively rejected it.

The difference betwwen a well funded health and social care sector and a poorly funded one is now very visibly being shown to us in the daily death toll of this terrible illness.

Well done to the premier league footballers though, every little helps.
 
So how much and how regularly are they contributing? Is it a set % of each players salary? It's a positive move from the players but the devils in the detail.
 
Cheesebored said:
So how much and how regularly are they contributing? Is it a set % of each players salary? It's a positive move from the players but the devils in the detail.
Click to expand...
Why is the devil in the detail? Are you wanting a comprehensive list of each players contribution?

It's a fund, who contributes what is completely irrelevant - unless you're looking at hanging players out to dry again.
 
Tarqs said:
Why is the devil in the detail? Are you wanting a comprehensive list of each players contribution?

It's a fund, who contributes what is completely irrelevant - unless you're looking at hanging players out to dry again.
Click to expand...

Agreed, using United players as examples it would be fair enough for our top earning summer/Jan signings to be a paying the 30%, but if say Ricky Holmes or Leon Clarke were contributing 5% or even nothing that would be fine by me. It's all about individual circumstances and just because Holmes is a "Premier League footballer" currently, it doesn't mean he's a multi millionaire that is now set up for life.
 
YES Blade said:
Agreed, using United players as examples it would be fair enough for our top earning summer/Jan signings to be a paying the 30%, but if say Ricky Holmes or Leon Clarke were contributing 5% or even nothing that would be fine by me. It's all about individual circumstances and just because Holmes is a "Premier League footballer" currently, it doesn't mean he's a multi millionaire that is now set up for life.
Click to expand...

Plus, it's still bang out of order that the focus has been on footballers. What about other rich sportspersons, recording artists, businessmen, hedge fund managers, traders etc.
 
Tarqs said:
Plus, it's still bang out of order that the focus has been on footballers. What about other rich sportspersons, recording artists, businessmen, hedge fund managers, traders etc.
Click to expand...
Because this originally came about with regards to staff at clubs being put on furlough whilst the players were being paid fully by the club. The idea being, I believe, that the percentage cut in wages would allow staff to be paid in full without the burden falling on the tax payer. Somewhere along the line this was blurred into now paying a voluntary contribution into a scheme to fund and support the NHS and its staff.
 
Bladezz said:
Think this now ends all the talk of 30% wage cuts for the players. Let them all donate an amount into the charity. Can imagine some of the big earners in the premier league will be putting huge amounts in.
Click to expand...

This is probably not going to be a popular take, but I seem to be missing something here. I thought the whole driver for clubs looking at upward of 30% temporary cuts in player wages was so that they could reduce losses – and protect for example the non-playing staff without having to go near the government schemes for hard-up businesses. The sort of thing in fact to relieve the pressure for us to even consider furloughing any staff. Is the argument now that because they’re donating to the NHS and unspecified amount of money that the pressures a cut in wages would alleviate have disappeared?

Don’t get me wrong, I think donations to help during the crisis are welcomed, particularly to support an appeal like this aimed at channelling funds to support frontline staff, though it really highlights the problems of underfunding of the NHS. Part of the problems encountered at the minute is the reality that in responses to pandemics/epidemics, throwing money at the situation has limitations – if you are short on nursing staff and certain healthcare professionals, you can’t just throw say £10m at it and buy a load of them off a factory shelf to deploy into the NHS, it requires investment towards that to train them over a number of years (and the foresight/political will to recognise this). Equally shortages of particular pieces of equipment currently is in part reflective of manufacturing-wide shortages.
 
TAMUS said:
If i was a French player , i would want my cut to go to France , i think its a poor get out plan
Click to expand...
It's a fair point, presuming of course they're contributing to the voluntary fund in the first place.
 
Cheesebored said:
Because this originally came about with regards to staff at clubs being put on furlough whilst the players were being paid fully by the club. The idea being, I believe, that the percentage cut in wages would allow staff to be paid in full without the burden falling on the tax payer. Somewhere along the line this was blurred into now paying a voluntary contribution into a scheme to fund and support the NHS and its staff.
Click to expand...
Fair point, however I think after Nick Hancock publicly calling them out to help, it was more the health service. I do believe though that they should be contributing towards the lower paid staff to prevent furlough before any donations elsewhere personally.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
This is probably not going to be a popular take, but I seem to be missing something here. I thought the whole driver for clubs looking at upward of 30% temporary cuts in player wages was so that they could reduce losses – and protect for example the non-playing staff without having to go near the government schemes for hard-up businesses. The sort of thing in fact to relieve the pressure for us to even consider furloughing any staff. Is the argument now that because they’re donating to the NHS and unspecified amount of money that the pressures a cut in wages would alleviate have disappeared?

Don’t get me wrong, I think donations to help during the crisis are welcomed, particularly to support an appeal like this aimed at channelling funds to support frontline staff, though it really highlights the problems of underfunding of the NHS. Part of the problems encountered at the minute is the reality that in responses to pandemics/epidemics, throwing money at the situation has limitations – if you are short on nursing staff and certain healthcare professionals, you can’t just throw say £10m at it and buy a load of them off a factory shelf to deploy into the NHS, it requires investment towards that to train them over a number of years (and the foresight/political will to recognise this). Equally shortages of particular pieces of equipment currently is in part reflective of manufacturing-wide shortages.
Click to expand...
It was never the case. If players gave up 30%, it would pay the lower earners (potentially furloughed) staff for bloody years, not a couple of months.
 
TAMUS said:
If i was a French player , i would want my cut to go to France , i think its a poor get out plan
Click to expand...

The government could always whack their taxes up to 50% and then they can feel like they're taxed in France too.
 



Tarqs said:
It was never the case. If players gave up 30%, it would pay the lower earners (potentially furloughed) staff for bloody years, not a couple of months.
Click to expand...

It was never the case that people were suggesting a cut in player wages to help protect the wages of non-playing staff? I thought that was pretty much the main argument until the PFA came back and said “but what about the impact on reducing our tax contribution that in part funds the NHS?” I don’t disagree that the amount needing to be saved certainly wouldn’t need to be high to do this.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
It was never the case that people were suggesting a cut in player wages to help protect the wages of non-playing staff? I thought that was pretty much the main argument until the PFA came back and said “but what about the impact on reducing our tax contribution that in part funds the NHS?” I don’t disagree that the amount needing to be saved certainly wouldn’t need to be high to do this.
Click to expand...
What I mean was, the 30%.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
It was never the case that people were suggesting a cut in player wages to help protect the wages of non-playing staff? I thought that was pretty much the main argument until the PFA came back and said “but what about the impact on reducing our tax contribution that in part funds the NHS?” I don’t disagree that the amount needing to be saved certainly wouldn’t need to be high to do this.
Click to expand...

That was the problem, it was always talked about as a flat 30%. In most cases it would mean that it's better for the government to pay the cost of furloughing of non playing staff as the players' tax from not taking a pay cut would've more than covered it.
 
The problem here for me, is the uniform nature of the actions. I'd be a lot happier if SUFC players looked after SUFC staff, the local hospitals and other local good causes.
 
The problem with this money staying locally is it means Sheffield one of the worst hit cities would get considerably less than for instance Manchester or Liverpool, they would obviously get loads more than somewhere like Cornwall who would get nothing. The money needs to go to where it is most needed at the time which could well mean Sheffield anyway. I do think players from much poorer third world countries should be sending money home. Sander Berge would probably contribute to the NHS cos his home country has s well-funded system
 
TAMUS said:
If i was a French player , i would want my cut to go to France , i think its a poor get out plan
Click to expand...
So if the French player broke his leg in Sheffield would you send him back to France to get it fixed ? Brexit well and truly alive.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
Hang on, is Snodgrass basically looking for respect for paying the tax he’s legally required to, and for not being one of the charlatans that avoids doing so?
Click to expand...

Players don't deserve a pat on the back for paying their tax and NI, but neither should they be singled out for criticism. As usual football and players are an easy target.
 
Well done to the players for doing this but the issue of football clubs having to furlough non playing staff to remain in business still remains doesn’t it? I thought that was the whole issue here? Either I’ve got the wrong end of the stick or the players have.
 
The biggest way to get people back on side was to get players giving money specifically to the NHS. I definitely think there should have been consideration given to putting it all in a pot and letting the respective clubs decide who in their area gets what. If a player wants to only put 1% in the pot and give 10% to a direct charity of their choosing, who cares. Anyone with that (potential) % of disposable income should be looking to donate something to someone.
 
LoughboroBlade said:
This is probably not going to be a popular take, but I seem to be missing something here. I thought the whole driver for clubs looking at upward of 30% temporary cuts in player wages was so that they could reduce losses – and protect for example the non-playing staff without having to go near the government schemes for hard-up businesses. The sort of thing in fact to relieve the pressure for us to even consider furloughing any staff. Is the argument now that because they’re donating to the NHS and unspecified amount of money that the pressures a cut in wages would alleviate have disappeared?

Don’t get me wrong, I think donations to help during the crisis are welcomed, particularly to support an appeal like this aimed at channelling funds to support frontline staff, though it really highlights the problems of underfunding of the NHS. Part of the problems encountered at the minute is the reality that in responses to pandemics/epidemics, throwing money at the situation has limitations – if you are short on nursing staff and certain healthcare professionals, you can’t just throw say £10m at it and buy a load of them off a factory shelf to deploy into the NHS, it requires investment towards that to train them over a number of years (and the foresight/political will to recognise this). Equally shortages of particular pieces of equipment currently is in part reflective of manufacturing-wide shortages.
Click to expand...

Points taken. Think the donation is more of we are here to help. Although it sounds cheesy that £10m for example will pay wages / buy equipment it’s better than nothing.

But the wage cuts are to help avoid furlough and top up the additional 20%. I believe it’s best to just sit back and see what approach we go with.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Akrotiri_Blades
Premier League Plus
Replies
7
Views
821
Zero dark thirty
Zero dark thirty
Tony Currie
BBC special on the Steel city derby
Replies
11
Views
2K
Jaggy Blade
Jaggy Blade
Glenluce Blade
Jili Buyabu, wingback and midwife
Replies
10
Views
1K
Rodley
Rodley
FH Team
Interviews from the players & staff in Bochum
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
CrookesBlade
CrookesBlade
BladeByChoice
Go Go Power Rangers
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
BladeByChoice
BladeByChoice

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom