MyOnlySolskjaer
Creator of Player Performance threads
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
They paid our fans who bought tickets to the Linz game £350 each. They seem to do it fairly often.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.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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Whose economic standpoint? Its the best for all of us.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.
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.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.
Small club mentalityLivercruel, 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.
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.At least livercruel reversed their decision, but it’s clear the type of club they have become in the last decade.
Probably, but as long as the net result is positive then surely the motivation behind it is irrelevant?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.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.
Honestly this is my thoughts on the matter.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.
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?Nice to hear, probably means no Sancho though.
Extra 200k?! I’d imagine the figure would be in the millions.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?
The club paid £350 to every single matchgoing fan in Austria for the LASK Linz gameReally 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.
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.Nice to hear, probably means no Sancho though.
Decision was made a week ago. Was included within discussion with maguire re team wage donations.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.
Millions?Extra 200k?! I’d imagine the figure would be in the millions.
Where did you get those numbers from? There's no way most of our non-playing staff earn just 900 quid a month.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.
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.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.
900 quid a month?! 200 staff when the tweet says 900 full-time employees?!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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Link?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.