Agreed. Clubs have one product: football. If the government says it's ok to play and players refuse then they shouldn't be paid full wages.
Could they void the PL due to the Coronavirus? | No | Resuming June 17th
- Thread starter Tarrou
- Start date
We're not allowed to look either? Dammit.
Watching the likes of Jordan Henderson attempt to make a tackle blind-folded is worth any amount of risk, in my opinion.
But surely at least consult them for ideas etc
Another solution to this dilemma is having the players perform in hazmat suits over their kits.
Rashford would be unstoppable in that
Rashford would be unstoppable in that
Wouldnt that be worse for the country though? I mean the amount the players would be taxed would be reduced, and the amount going back to the country thus reduced (tax money going to NHS and other stuff).
The only ones who benefit from this are the greedy owners.
Or am I missing something?
Clubs won't go against their players wishes.
Very odd. Especially when you have a number of PL players already speaking out against the idea. Aguero, Rose, Murray etc
I'm not really making a practical suggestion. I just find it slightly obscene that footballers will be paid their absurd wages to do nothing while normal people will be forced to go back to work and face a far higher risk of infection than a footballer would, or else earn nothing.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Its just going to add to the narrative of out of touch millionaire football players refusing to go back to work when the rest of the country does.
It would be interesting to see how many players were prepared to drop their wages down to £2000 a month over going to work.
Probably none but if they simply claim to feel unwell or sick or whatever then they won't play and clubs will have to pay them anyway. Like I said before: clubs need more power over players because right now it's the opposite.
First part is a fair point but then it’s slightly negated by the second one. Whilst there are rich owners in the PL. The rich owners in the PL acquired their wealth outside of football. In general owning a football club isn’t actually that profitable due to the vast sums paid to players and the money spent on transfers.
A lot of clubs would run out of money if they went a season or two without tv money etc. and then wouldn’t be able to pay their players anyway. Obviously though you’ve got the likes of city, Chelsea who have owners with astronomical wealth made outside of football but they’re actually few and far between.
Its not the same at all. Im not sitting touch tight to my co worker at the office dripping in sweat.
Its incomparable
What's all this rubbish about players going on furlough or dropping wages to £2k a month :lol
Haven't the United players all dropped by 30% and that money going to charity? Even if they went a year without pay, it makes no difference to them. Worst case scenario they have to sell a house or two. They're not key workers, and are financially successful enough to the PL/FA to feck off.
On a side note, I just downloaded that photo of the Liverpool fan crying, ready to post for whenever season is cancelled, or they're GIVEN the title
Haven't the United players all dropped by 30% and that money going to charity? Even if they went a year without pay, it makes no difference to them. Worst case scenario they have to sell a house or two. They're not key workers, and are financially successful enough to the PL/FA to feck off.
On a side note, I just downloaded that photo of the Liverpool fan crying, ready to post for whenever season is cancelled, or they're GIVEN the title
Players have all the power, that is exactly the reason we have not seen clubs cutting their wages.
If you think about it, players should really be furloughed, there is no way the can work and it would save alot of money for clubs.
but is what I wrote incorrect? They are the only ones who benefit from players taking a paycut.
I think 'run out of money' is a bit of hyperbole no?
Would be interesting to see how many investors have actually increased their wealth vs made a loss. The loss for me seems to be the 'sugardaddies' as opposed to many other owners who have tried to make as much profit as possible before this pandemic.
Would also be interesting to see what contracts would state on circumstances like this. A player being told 'play in these conditions or take a pay cut to 2k' could see a lot of issues come from this, but thats a different point. (and its not going to happen like the initial person I quoted, stated)
Yes you are the only one who knows this, apologise.
Rashford who cannot play football, cannot go to the training ground at United earning 200k a week.
The club furloughs him and the club saves 200k a week.
Rashford gets £2k a month until he can return.
I think he does he’s just insanely unrealistic to think players on £200k a week are going to accept £2.5k a month.
The Champions League next season should be a World Cup style month long tournament that is played after all the domestic games.
I also suspect that most players aren't actually employees, more like self-employed contractors who then contract to a club. If so, that alone makes trying to furlough them an interesting idea, they are a supplier with a very different contract to an employee...
That is a different subject, Ofcourse I know no player will accept this hence why I started off saying players have all the power.
But for national teams and call it Euro 2021
Don’t massively disagree with the idea to be honest.
The only reason they are protected is because they are footballers, any other industry, employees are on furlough no matter the wage.
If we are not playing football, the players are not entertaining crowds so the club is not making any money, yet they are still having to pay millions in salary.
We have seen clubs around Europe force players to take salary caps, Juve players have taken cuts of 30% and these have been differed to be paid over the next 2 years or so.
Nope.
Probably more than you would think. The money they make gives them the freedom to say feck it and sacrifice their salary for a few months if they fear for their health.
No, you’re correct. The benefit would be to club owners... initially. But for arguments sake if footballers don’t want to play until 100% risk free and safe, football will need to be suspended indefinitely and if footballers remain on full pay ultimately the club will suffer and then so will fans.
It’s not a hyperbole at all, look at PL clubs wages and revenue. The margins are so thin. PL chairmen tend to make more money from their other businesses. If they went two seasons with no TV/prize money, their pool of money generated from football would run out and they’d then have to start funding the club via their other more profitable businesses. Sugar daddies obviously don’t have this problem. Nor the Glazers but the Glazers are Manchester United owners. We’re on another planet to most clubs . But the simple fact is most clubs aren’t run by sugar daddies and most clubs aren’t Manchester United or Arsenal.
When you start going into the lower leagues. Clubs and chairmen have got no chance. Simon Jordan’s story is a great example of what owning a club can be like if you’ve not bottomless funds or PL tv money to survive on.
Are they? Genuine question. We make 627m vs. 602 costs, and 178m of that is transfer spending that's technically optional. Our margins are anything but thin. I know we are a money machine but i would be surprised if other PL clubs were struggling, especially taking into account most will be having a year off on transfers.
This whole thing is just weird. 1 day I wake up and and am convinced the league will resume and other days I wake up certain it will not.
What’s other people thoughts on this?
Will it resume or will it be done away with and decided via ppg?
What’s other people thoughts on this?
Will it resume or will it be done away with and decided via ppg?
To be fair their are certain ‘selling clubs’ where the lack of transfers could be a hindrance rather than a help.
Yeah exactly were Man United, this will have less of an impact on us as quick as it will on other clubs.
Im not saying they’re struggling or will struggle anytime soon. I’ll stress this is purely based on a situation where there is no football until it is 100% risk free which is a while away right? . Where footballers can still be paid full salary. If most clubs go one or two seasons with no tv or prize money, they will struggle to pay all their players in full.
Tssst. It'll still be called Euro 2020. Just played in 2021. Makes perfect (UEFA) sense.
They're employees
You are touching the same surfaces all day however. Think it’s also a fair assumption that not one of you would have actually undergone a fecking test to see if you are infected either.
This is before we get into the conversation of how you get to and from your place of work.
Clubs in the efl wouldn’t survive a year without attended games unless they were subsidized. Total income on attendance tickets alone in all efl is around 250m ignoring any other income on the day.
Two methods of social distancing while making a tackle .
Official: Serie A to return to team training May 18 and season continue June 13th.
https://app.football-italia.net/?re...t#article/footballitalia-153170&menu=news-all
Medical protocol agreed - if a player tests positive entire team will go into quarantine.
https://app.football-italia.net/?re...t#article/footballitalia-153170&menu=news-all
Medical protocol agreed - if a player tests positive entire team will go into quarantine.
Oh yeah they’ve got no chance of surviving. I meant PL clubs would be ok for a while.
There have been a couple of players already tested positive. When Italy opens up little more there will be more who are going to be tested positive. Not less. It is nightmare. If they agree to continue season they should be planing for a finish 3-4 months longer than they believe. At same time, there is a big question about next season as well.