Amarsdd
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,299
What?I think all the clubs should Furlough their players. Let the government pay them £2500 a month with no top up
What?I think all the clubs should Furlough their players. Let the government pay them £2500 a month with no top up
Exactly what I posted in the 'PL furlough' thread. Someone said it's just business but personally (morals aside), it's a stupid business decision ... short term gain v potential huge longer term loss/PR disaster.We won’t, because the small financial savings we make wouldn’t be worth the negative PR.
This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.Man Utd is publicly listed and needs to do whatever is best for its shareholders.
I have a problem with this attitude. The way to cut expenses, if they have to (which neither LFC or Utd do), is voluntary cuts in player wages. It is all of the clubs’ responsibility to campaign for player wage cuts, publicly and very vocally. As has been said, a small percentage cut in player wages will easily pay non-playing staff wages.This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.
The future of clubs like Liverpool and United are secure - they certainly have enough to keep paying their stars obscene wages. Besides, a club's image is an important part of the brand. Liverpool's took a hammering today, and rightly so.This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.
I bet you think you’re being really clever by taking this stance. It’s a c**t move, nothing more nothing less.This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.
You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.The future of clubs like Liverpool and United are secure - they certainly have enough to keep paying their stars obscene wages. Besides, a club's image is an important part of the brand. Liverpool's took a hammering today, and rightly so.
For a start, have any of Liverpool's owners or management accepted reduced terms or donated their own money to alleviate the damage? Plus, a company the size of GE has a drastically bigger workforce than Liverpool does. And, aside from gate receipts, Liverpool still get huge income from commercial deals, so it's not as if their income has completely dried up is it? Grounded flights earn nothing, Liverpool, without playing, still do.You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.
GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.
ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.
GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?
Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
taxpayer's money is a Scouser's birth right. Would you strip the crown away from the queen? No. Same with welfare benefits for Scousers.I cannot believe the news that Liverpool are following Spurs and Newcastle in furloughing non-playing staff to cover their wages in this horrendous time for our country and the globe.
What this means is that Liverpool, Spurs and Newcastle are going cap in hand to the government to dip into the taxpayer-funded fund, set aside to support companies in trouble, not some of the richest football clubs in the world.
It is an outrage that any Premier League club with such high revenues, AND profit, who are willing to spend stupid sums to their players and to buy them, would ever seek a handout from taxpayers to pay their staff.
And that is why United, if we have an ounce of ethics and kudos about us, should not go down this road. This is bail out money, not a cashpot for profiteers.
I would expect this from the likes of Mike Ashley, but please, Woodward, if you do nothing else positive in your time at the club, do not look at these clubs and think we should do the same.
And my hope is that we come out and say... that this not just wrong... but abhorrent.
What a load of crap.You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.
GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.
ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.
GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?
Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
Yes that’s a good post.For a start, have any of Liverpool's owners or management accepted reduced terms or donated their own money to alleviate the damage? Plus, a company the size of GE has a drastically bigger workforce than Liverpool does. And, aside from gate receipts, Liverpool still get huge income from commercial deals, so it's not as if their income has completely dried up is it? Grounded flights earn nothing, Liverpool, without playing, still do.
And I'll say it again, if they can afford to pay their stars, they can afford to pay the staff who earn minimum wage.
Finally, United's financial responsibility rests with their own workforce. Morally it would be great if they could help struggling local businesses but, for now, not following the lead of a small number of greedy, shameful other clubs would be enough for most fans.
You can't be serious. Any strong company with a solid balance sheet shouldn't be looking at maximising profits right now. They should be happy to carry their own employees costs for as long as they can, and leave the business rescue cash for companies that actually need it. It's very narrow-minded for clubs/companies to try and justify this. Ultimately a company's product/service relies on a healthy consumer base that will purchase from them - they are in fact directly screwing over their own potential customers by taking away the cash needed to save their businesses/jobs....all so that a multi-million pound organisation can save a few bucks in the short-term.You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.
GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.
ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.
GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?
Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
Your post is an idiotYou make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.
GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.
ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.
GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?
Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
Can we furlough The Wood too?I think all the clubs should Furlough their players. Let the government pay them £2500 a month with no top up
Yep. Furlough everyone. Furlough the glazers. Furlough WoodyCan we furlough the chairman too?
Total false equivalence.You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.
GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.
ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.
GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?
Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
Terrific staying the right side of the Caf rules thereYour post is an idiot
I think you mean "idiotic."Your post is an idiot
Scenario 1 is what Liverpool are going for. A transfer ban should be placed for any clubs taking advantage of this. That would be fair for all clubs involved.I think you mean "idiotic."
Business owners and managers have to look at the big picture and look at what might happen in 2 months, 6 months and 2 years. Let's consider these two scenarios for a big club.
Scenario number 1. The club recognizes there will be a substantial decrease in revenues and acts quickly and boldly by furloughing workers and negotiate pay cuts with players to cut expenses. The summer transfer window opens and the club has the funds to buy 4 or 5 quality players at very good prices because it's a buyers market. Next February the club is having a great season with a much stronger squad and the fans and city are ecstatic. (watch "Sunderland til' I die" on Netflix to understand how important this can be, good show)
Scenario number 2. The club does not furlough any employees, honors it's contracts with its players and uses it's cash reserves and borrows money in order to get through this difficult period. The transfer window opens and, because of it's cash flow problems, has to sell a good player or two and can only buy young, inexpensive players for the future. Next February the club is in a worse position than it was last season.
Granted, maybe there is a middle ground. Anyway, if United do not cut expenses now, you should not complain when you are disappointed we don't buy some quality players. I know you will though.
Clubs owned by billionaires are exploiting a scheme that was intended to help small businesses and are having the tax payers pay 80% of their non-playing staffs salaries. You don’t see a problem with that? Tax payers money being used to save these clubs a few quid, and you are cool with that? Wouldn’t you rather that money go somewhere else? Like to the homeless for example?Can someone explain to me why it makes a difference to you that companies lay off workers that can not actually work during this pandemic so they can be paid by the state, versus being paid by yourseason ticket money. Either way, they are being paid out of your pocket.
Im seeing a lot of hate towards Liverpool and Tottenham for taking these actions, but the argumen that tax payer money should not be used is a little bit comical.
Firstly, The British state is not going to go bankrupt. There is no shortage of public funds available to combat this epidemic. Secondly, you and all other fans are paying the bill regardless of what account it comes from.
Thirdly: Nearly ever club in the UK do NOT pay shareholder dividends. The saving does not go to "some billionaires pocket". It literally remains in the club. The only club that DO pay dividends is Manchester United, and we are paying all staff and players in full throughout the year.
Public opinion is so passionate and short sighted sometimes I wonder how many actually takes time to consider the sense of their argument.
For the record: ive always been on the side that wants the players to take paycuts to keep the backroom staff in employment. But i also very much underrstand the reason for laying off staff in a time like this. Feelings don't pay the bills.
And who decides which clubs are taking advantage of this situation? Besides, that could make the problem worse for many clubs because prices for players will go down even further. Many clubs count on selling players to make ends meet.Scenario 1 is what Liverpool are going for. A transfer ban should be placed for any clubs taking advantage of this. That would be fair for all clubs involved.
But the tax payers money ARE going to the staff salaries. That's my point. Regardless if they come from the club or not. Money distributed from the state or directly to the club, it doesnt make any actual difference.Clubs owned by billionaires are exploiting a scheme that was intended to help small businesses and are having the tax payers pay 80% of their non-playing staffs salaries. You don’t see a problem with that? Tax payers money being used to save these clubs a few quid, and you are cool with that? Wouldn’t you rather that money go somewhere else? Like to the homeless for example?
You've conflated tax payers with customers on a few occasions now. An individuals wealth does not equate to the money accumulated through taxation. It's ridiculous.But the tax payers money ARE going to the staff salaries. That's my point. Regardless if they come from the club or not. Money distributed from the state or directly to the club, it doesnt make any actual difference.
Read my post again. I do no such thing.You've conflated tax payers with customers on a few occasions now. An individuals wealth does not equate to the money accumulated through taxation. It's ridiculous.
Of course you do.Read my post again. I do no such thing.
An individuals wealth have no bearing on my post whatsoever. The money is already in the club.
You're not quite understanding my point so I'll just leave it at this.Of course you do.
And where do you think that money comes from? The club paying wages and the government paying it isn't coming from the same pot. Crazy.
I struggle to make sense of nonsense so perhaps that's best.You're not quite understanding my point so I'll just leave it at this.
This sounds like the makings of a great reality TV show (if that isnt too much of an oxymoron).I think all the clubs should Furlough their players. Let the government pay them £2500 a month with no top up