Ed Woodward: Club won’t use government furlough scheme, they will be paid as normal

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[SirAnderson]

Just lovely and welcomed news.

 

[Skills]

Good. We're more than rich enough to do it.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

That’s the way to do things.

Livercruel, spurs and Newcastle are shameless. At least livercruel reversed their decision, but it’s clear the type of club they have become in the last decade.

 

[crossy1686]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

 

[Skills]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

They paid our fans who bought tickets to the Linz game £350 each. They seem to do it fairly often.

Whether they're do this for goodwill or their image, they seem to do the right thing more often than not. So fairplay to whoever is influential enough to call the right shots

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

To be fair, this was the stance from the club before the written letter.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Classnordic]

Good job to everyone deciding for this. Might not be the best from an economical standpoint, but surely its the best for moral and PR.

 

[redIndianDevil]

Good job to everyone deciding for this. Might not be the best from an economical standpoint, but surely its the best for moral and PR.

Whose economic standpoint? Its the best for all of us.

 

[Cloud7]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

At the end of the day, whether the motive for this is pure, or they’re just trying to back some goodwill, doing the right thing is doing the right thing, and I’m glad our club is handling this properly, regardless of their motives.

 

[devilish]

Livercruel, spurs and Newcastle are shameless. At least livercruel reversed their decision, but it’s clear the type of club they have become in the last decade.

Small club mentality

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

At least livercruel reversed their decision, but it’s clear the type of club they have become in the last decade.

It almost manages to paint Liverpool in a worse light in my opinion, they tried it and after some bad PR they quickly admit that actually they don't need to use the scheme as they are loaded as feck. They were just "giving it a go" at robbing money from the tax-payer & without the backlash would have had zero qualms doing so.

 

[tenpoless]

Good news. The crazy part is, all of Tottenham, Newcastle and Liverpool can actually afford to do the same thing but refused to. Classless pricks. I hope We will never heard the end of it. The media needs to lash out at them.

Edit: Liverpool reversed their decision? good for them, bunch of wankers.

 

[Jonno]

Even more embarrassing that Liverpool made a U-Turn. Their intentions were there, and they were forced into making the U-turn due to public pressure. Joke of a club.

 

[SirAF]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

Probably, but as long as the net result is positive then surely the motivation behind it is irrelevant?

 

[Craig Ward]

Brilliant news. All top tier clubs are wealthy enough to manage.

Imagine how much general staff could be paid out of Sanchez's weekly wage alone? Football and money are an insane combination

 

[Acole9]

Good on them.

 

[groovyalbert]

As has been the case throughout the history of the premier league; all other clubs, take note.

 

[Brightonian]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

You could say the same about any good action by any company ever. It's impossible to know whether there are genuinely good intentions in such actions or not. Arguably the distinction doesn't even exist: I'm sure the human beings in question are happy to be able to do the right thing, and they are able to do so because it is the right thing for the club to be seen to do.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter, the action is what counts.

 

[villain]

It almost manages to paint Liverpool in a worse light in my opinion, they tried it and after some bad PR they quickly admit that actually they don't need to use the scheme as they are loaded as feck. They were just "giving it a go" at robbing money from the tax-payer & without the backlash would have had zero qualms doing so.

Honestly this is my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Deery]

Nice to hear, probably means no Sancho though.

 

[crossy1686]

Nice to hear, probably means no Sancho though.

The extra £200k this is going to cost over the next month or so isn't going to stop a Sancho deal, we're not the only club that has to pay out with no match day or TV revenue. And does that really matter also?

 

[RUCK4444]

Great stuff, this is what we are about, setting the bar for class in the league.

 

[hubbuh]

The extra £200k this is going to cost over the next month or so isn't going to stop a Sancho deal, we're not the only club that has to pay out with no match day or TV revenue. And does that really matter also?

Extra 200k?! I’d imagine the figure would be in the millions.

 

[RedSky]

Moments like this is why i'm proud to support this club.

 

[One Night Only]

Now this is how a proper club does it!

Already decided we weren't gonna furlough, no forced pay cut for players, players and manager figuring out how to donate some of their wages instead!

 

[Tom Cato]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

The club paid £350 to every single matchgoing fan in Austria for the LASK Linz game
The club paid for 150 fans to be transported to and from Kazakhstan for the Astana game after the Thomas Cook collapse
And now this. And that is only this season.

Plus the Manchester United Foundation.

There is a track record of the club giving a toss about its fans, and I'm quite happy about it.

There is no way for the club to do the right thing without it being a part of some cynical scheme?

 

[Tom Cato]

Nice to hear, probably means no Sancho though.

This won't affect our transfer budget. The clubs sponsor deals cover the remainder of the fiscal years wages, that's why the club can afford to take this stance.

 

[sammsky1]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

Decision was made a week ago. Was included within discussion with maguire re team wage donations.

Glazers can be questionable owners but they can also be good employers too.

And also nothing wrong if public perception informs part of decision making. We actively promote our 'brand', so it makes sense that decisions would always seek to defend and even improve that.

So not sure what your problem is.

 

[cyril C]

Extra 200k?! I’d imagine the figure would be in the millions.

Millions?

I read it from BBC that each person will receive GBP 900 per month. Let's say a staff at 1K per month is furlough. Multiple it by 200 staff, for 3 months,

so 1K x 200 x 3 = 600K.

Not enough to pay Sanchez 2 weeks of wages.

 

[Skills]

Millions?

I read it from BBC that each person will receive GBP 900 per month. Let's say a staff at 1K per month is furlough. Multiple it by 200 staff, for 3 months,

so 1K x 200 x 3 = 600K.

Not enough to pay Sanchez 2 weeks of wages.

Where did you get those numbers from? There's no way most of our non-playing staff earn just 900 quid a month.

We have the biggest commercial dept out of any club in England. And I reckon a lot of them are paid pretty well for the work they do securing sponsorship deals.

 

[The Irish Connection]

Really happy we've decided to do this but the cynic in me says that the board and Woodward saw an opportunity here to bank some goodwill.

Yes, I suppose there’s a political slant alright. But credit where it’s due, if the glazers buy a few more good players and start getting rid of the debt, you couldn’t complain.
Shameful from Liverpool of course.

 

[hubbuh]

Millions?

I read it from BBC that each person will receive GBP 900 per month. Let's say a staff at 1K per month is furlough. Multiple it by 200 staff, for 3 months,

so 1K x 200 x 3 = 600K.

Not enough to pay Sanchez 2 weeks of wages.

900 quid a month?! 200 staff when the tweet says 900 full-time employees?!

 

[elmo]

Millions?

I read it from BBC that each person will receive GBP 900 per month. Let's say a staff at 1K per month is furlough. Multiple it by 200 staff, for 3 months,

so 1K x 200 x 3 = 600K.

Not enough to pay Sanchez 2 weeks of wages.

You're crazy if you think full time employees are paid so low.

 

[RedDevil@84]

Good job Glazers and Woodward.
Now shame on you Levy

 

[lex talionis]

Well done. Great news.

 

[crossy1686]

Decision was made a week ago. Was included within discussion with maguire re team wage donations.

Glazers can be questionable owners but they can also be good employers too.

And also nothing wrong if public perception informs part of decision making. We actively promote our 'brand', so it makes sense that decisions would always seek to defend and even improve that.

So not sure what your problem is.

No problem, I just thought this announcement came at a cynical time when we haven't heard much in the way of furloughing until Liverpool made a meal of it and caused outrage. I'm glad it's happened and I don't have a huge problem with the Glaziers or Woodward as it happens.

 

[cyril C]

Where did you get those numbers from? There's no way most of our non-playing staff earn just 900 quid a month.

We have the biggest commercial dept out of any club in England. And I reckon a lot of them are paid pretty well for the work they do securing sponsorship deals.

900 a month payment, is from BBC, as I said. That's why I am asking you Brit on what is the official figure, otherwise this is the only valid number that I can quote. My understanding on YOUR scheme is that government will subsidies your wage up to 900 (may be 250 a week?) a month. If Woodward put himself on furlough then he gets 900 a month as well.

Liverpool said they furloughed a number of staff, obviously NOT all staff, but the lowest paid staff, such as ground men, tea ladies, cleaners, anyone on around 10-15K a year.

MU said it has 900 staff, my guess is Liverpool should have at least 500-700 staff, even if 200 of them are <15K a year (which is of course an exaggerated no.), that was how MUCH Liverpool could have saved over 3 months.

 

[Skills]

900 a month payment, is from BBC, as I said. That's why I am asking you Brit on what is the official figure, otherwise this is the only valid number that I can quote. My understanding on YOUR scheme is that government will subsidies your wage up to 900 (may be 250 a week?) a month. If Woodward put himself on furlough then he gets 900 a month as well.

Link?

£900 a month is well below minimum wage for full time employees. The govt scheme promises to pay up to £2500 a month.

The guys working in the commercial side of the business will be earning even more than that, as it's so important to our off-field success. Then there's scouts etc who probably earn a decent wack.