PL clubs furlough non-playing staff | Liverpool, Spurs & Bournemouth U-turns

[Buchan]

Amazing that it’s taken a global humanitarian crisis for some to wake up to the monstrosity that is modern football.

You need three (or more in some countries) separate channel subscriptions to watch all top-flight and European football. Clubs release three new strips every single season. Ticket prices continue to outrun inflation. The list goes on and on... Every single facet of the game is about generating money and maximising finances. The game is well and truly through the looking glass now (as well as a lot of professional sports).

It’s a fecking shambles and in times such as these, it’s easy to see who the real heroes are and who are the selfish, vacuous bastards. Just bin the whole fecking lot off.

 

[Tom Cato]

Sorry but the players are not working either. Surely by the very nature of any contract, fixed term or not, the employee under said contract is required to work.

Sure there will be legalities and the potential for contract terms being breached however, before the clubs put ANY staff on furlough they should have collectively gone back to the players in the league and put it on their toes as it were.

Say to them, listen this is an unprecedented situation, rather than get into legalities around contract situations let's agree a blanket reduction for players across the league that will allow us (the clubs) to speak with the non-playing staff and put them on furlough. That would have been a fair approach.

The banks are being told to stop all bonuses, there is always room to implement new legislation in unprecedented times like these. Not to mention it would be extremely difficult for the players to refuse this and simultaneously allow the non-playing staff to be furloughed. The clubs have jumped the gun to save a quick buck at the expense of the tax payer before even speaking to the players. Not acceptable sorry.

I'm speaking from the position of having furloughed 36 staff last week, whilst it is a totally different industry we included directors and were not selective/biased in our approach. The last thing people need now is to feel shafted by their employer on top of everything else.

Within the parameters of the contract and the stipulated terms of employment, the players are performing the work duties required under the terms of the agreement.

The players are: Actively training, withing the constraints of the parameters set by the British state
The players are taking part in club mandated public press

You're missing the point about the palyers salaries not being cut. There are legalities that the FPA UK and the clubs are currently working out in terms of reducing players salaries. The justification is that reduction in salaries are potentially not baked into the contract for a situation like this, and if the club reduces payments outright, they could be in breach of contract and the player could potentially void his contract and join another club if a appeal court agreest that the breach is sufficient. The club want to avoid this small possibility, and that is why the clubs and the Players Assosciation are hashing this one out. They did not reach an agreement yesterday.

Again, fixed term contracts, and permanent employment contracts are not the same. There are considerations. As you say, "Sure there will be legalities and the potential for contract terms being breached" - This is literally the one thing that stops the players wages from being cut right now.

But I'll just emphasise. I have been very clear that I want the players to agree to take paycuts themselves before the club reaches a critical point that will affect the club negatively.

On that note, I own 2 companies myself, and I have already foregone my own salary for the next 6 months over 2 weeks ago h to alleviate any potential risk of employees not being paid. I am very well intimately familiar with the need to set an example.

My entire point that I am trying to convey in no uncertain terms is that the players and regular staff are not in any way comparable in terms of their employment terms or status.

BUT YES THE PLAYERS SHOULD TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM. - In fact, Norwich already did.

 

[SilentWitness]

Based on how many decided to donate 1 day's pay to nurses in the NHS a few years back, I wouldn't get your hopes up.

True, makes me feel sick though. When you see family members struggling and knowing that there are people that have the means to help and just decide not to. I know that they have no obligation to use their money for things like this but it shows you how morally bankrupt the league is. I do wonder how much backlash they'll actually receive though if they choose not to take a pay cut.

I know a lot of friends and family who hate football due to the money involved in it but they've never really spoke about it on public forums. I tried to defend the footballers before and justify it due to the money that is pumped into it by us (the consumers) but at a time like this where we aren't receiving anything from the game because we can't watch them play it has really woke me up a bit to the ridiculousness of it all.

fecking around with toilet roll challenges just shows how much they are detached from everyone else in the world.

IF teams weren't having to furlough staff or let them go and could keep paying all of their staff it's a little more understandable (But still makes you question their morals). The fact that staff are being put on furlough and are being let go though gives them no excuse to not donate or offer to have a temporary paycut.

 

[Skills]

True, makes me feel sick though. When you see family members struggling and knowing that there are people that have the means to help and just decide not to. I know that they have no obligation to use their money for things like this but it shows you how morally bankrupt the league is. I do wonder how much backlash they'll actually receive though if they choose not to take a pay cut.

I know a lot of friends and family who hate football due to the money involved in it but they've never really spoke about it on public forums. I tried to defend the footballers before and justify it due to the money that is pumped into it by us (the consumers) but at a time like this where we aren't receiving anything from the game because we can't watch them play it has really woke me up a bit to the ridiculousness of it all.

fecking around with toilet roll challenges just shows how much they are detached from everyone else in the world.

IF teams weren't having to furlough staff or let them go and could keep paying all of their staff it's a little more understandable (But still makes you question their morals). The fact that staff are being put on furlough and are being let go though gives them no excuse to not donate or offer to have a temporary paycut.

Does it make you more or less sick, that your clubs owner (Moshiri's) net worth is many times more than the combined net worth of your entire first team squad? Yet, it won't be him who'll be dipping into his own pockets to pay his own employees?

 

[SilentWitness]

Does it make you more or less sick, that your clubs owner (Moshiri's) net worth is many times more than the combined net worth of your entire first team squad? Yet, it won't be him who'll be dipping into his own pockets to pay his own employees?

Congrats for assuming I only care about footballers. Anyone in a position of high wealth should be taking pay cuts or donating. No excuse.

 

[Skills]

Congrats for assuming I only care about footballers. Anyone in a position of high wealth should be taking pay cuts or donating. No excuse.

Yet you (and many others on here) are only crying and whining about the players. At least the players earn the money they're being paid, the leeches who own our football clubs are literally here to capitalise on the growth & value of the PL.

 

[The Original]

I find that hard to believe for PL footballers. It may be funnelled to other places though. If they are actually spending it all they're incredibly stupid, which is very possible I guess.

Like i say, some people will go bankrupt whether you pay them 100 quid or 100,000. It's a lot harder to waste all of it in the modern age, especially with all the support mechanisms in place that weren't there 20 years ago.

And none of this compares to the fact they are cutting people off without a second thought who are earning 50k per year if they're lucky, and who all might have similar money problems of their own.

sounds immoral when you put it that way but then their not exactly cutting them off into

If you are in a position of financial difficulty on even £10,000 a week (£520,000 per year) you would have to be a complete imbecile, no two ways about it. You could at least buy one house per year without a mortgage; as soon as you can buy a house outright you should really not have any financial difficulties at all, even with the extra expenditure you stated. After all, you have the security of having a home to live in, and likely a pretty nice one. A lot of financial stress comes from not having the security of owning your own home.

I see no reason why players should not see a 20% wage reduction in line with other employees since they should be living comfortably. After all, it is not like they are doing anything to earn the money. If people on far less wages are able to live with 20% less, how can footballers be permitted to continue to earn 100%.

Besides, going by that average, it is likely that most players in the Premier League are on about £30,000 - £50,000 per week anyway. I don't see how anyone can debate that players should keep 100% of their wages when they are doing nothing.

My position is that players should be made to take pay cuts if everyone else has to take them.

I dont think players should be expected to feel ashamed or be put under a moral obligation to make this sacrifice themselves.

 

[McGrathsipan]

Chefs, gardeners, personality security. Mum, Dad, Sibling's houses, cars & expenses.

Also you know saving/investing money so that once your career's over, your/their lifestyle doesn't have need to get down scaled. What seems like a lot of money now, probably isn't as much going into the future. Roy Keane was once the highest paid player in the league at a then outrageous 50k a week (2.5m / yr), now he's a bitter old man who has to swallow his own pride & dignity and talk shit with idiots like Redknapp & Souness.

Absolute Bull sh*t. They are under no obligation for any of that.

They are paid enough to take a pay cut for a few weeks. There is no situation where they should continue to get paid full whack while the bedrock staff get shafted. No situation.

 

[Skills]

Absolute Bull sh*t. They are under no obligation for any of that.

They are paid enough to take a pay cut for a few weeks. There is no situation where they should continue to get paid full whack while the bedrock staff get shafted. No situation.

So they should just stop paying their own employees? Maybe they should see if they can furlough them under the govt scheme.

 

[McGrathsipan]

So they should just stop paying their own employees? Maybe they should see if they can furlough them under the govt scheme.

So their Mums, Dads, Sibling's houses, cars & expenses are employees are they?
They can make their own dinners and cut their own fecking grass for a few weeks.

Youre talking drivel.

 

[Skills]

So their Mums, Dads, Sibling's houses, cars & expenses are employees are they?
They can make their own dinners and cut their own fecking grass for a few weeks.

Youre talking drivel.

No, but they're still expenses that won't just go away.

So what do the chefs/gardeners/security guys do? Where is their income coming from? Unemployment benefits?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Thought Simon Jordan as usual spoke a lot of sense on this

I'm surprised PL clubs haven't done this already. If I'm not mistaken the Barcelona players have offered to do so. Seems like a small gesture for such wealthy individuals that would make a big difference.

 

[AlwaysRed66]

No, but they're still expenses that won't just go away.

So what do the chefs/gardeners/security guys do? Where is their income coming from? Unemployment benefits?

I thought all non essential key workers were on lockdown. Are you saying these prima donnas couldn't cope without having their ars*s wiped & spoon fed.

 

[McGrathsipan]

No, but they're still expenses that won't just go away.

So what do the chefs/gardeners/security guys do? Where is their income coming from? Unemployment benefits?

Yes, like everyone else, they are hardly essential services are they.

 

[SilentWitness]

Yet you (and many others on here) are only crying and whining about the players. At least the players earn the money they're being paid, the leaches who own our football clubs are literally here to capitalise on the growth & value of the PL.

You realise that we are complaining about that because they are staff and other staff are being laid off/furlough while they are not? What we are all saying is that if some are being let go or having to take pay cuts then everyone should. It just so happens that these footballers earn so much money that them taking a pay cut would be able to pay most of those other staff. By complaining about the footballers not being made to take pay cuts, I'm also moaning about the Chairmen and authorities not making it the case that they have to do that. The industry as a whole should be taking pay cuts. The difference is how much money they have as I keep repeating.

Don't footballers capitalise on the growth and value of the PL or leach it?

It's hard not to whine about the majority of footballers when there are players like Lewandowski who are showing them exactly how it should be done (donating 1 million euros and taking a 20% pay cut).

 

[Eckers99]

People talking about how much footballers rely on a cottage industry of general arse-wipers as a way of offsetting their remoteness and greed.

Yeah, them still needing the club handy man to come round at 3am to connect them to the wifi makes the situation much more palatable.

And saying 'what about owners?' makes no difference. They're all as bad as each other.

 

[Skills]

You realise that we are complaining about that because they are staff and other staff are being laid off/furlough while they are not? What we are all saying is that if some are being let go or having to take pay cuts then everyone should. It just so happens that these footballers earn so much money that them taking a pay cut would be able to pay most of those other staff. By complaining about the footballers not being made to take pay cuts, I'm also moaning about the Chairmen and authorities not making it the case that they have to do that. The industry as a whole should be taking pay cuts. The difference is how much money they have as I keep repeating.

Don't footballers capitalise on the growth and value of the PL or leach it?

It's hard not to whine about the majority of footballers when there are players like Lewandowski who are showing them exactly how it should be done (donating 1 million euros and taking a 20% pay cut).

And that's the clubs choice. Not the players doing. The clubs can agree to sell players early if they want to save money like that. I'm sure, it wouldn't cause Richarlison any harm if Everton chose to do that, because he'll have more than enough suitors on the market who will take him on.

But they won't do that because it doesn't suit them. They want the players to take a paycut because they want to hold on to their own cash instead so Everton can still go out in the market and spunk more cash on the likes of Andre Gomes & Moise Kean. Essentially they want the players to take a pay cut to still fund their spending in the summer, or else they'd just ask the players to defer payments.

And no obviously not, the players are the biggest contributors to the growth and value of the league. They're the product & the reason the likes of Sky/PL/Clubs can shaft you for obscene ticket prices & TV subscriptions. You are right, you are getting massively fecked over. But it's not by the players, its by your own clubs.

 

[MalcolmTucker]

These players are fined £20,000 for turning up late for training, £1,000 for their phone ringing during a meal - they can easily take a paycut for a couple of months. There should be a tapered wage cut across the board for every employee at the club - it's ridiculous that those who are eye-wateringly wealthy are the ones that are still getting 100%.

It's simple and to think you have posters trying to defend these players because they have a lifestyle to maintain as if they need a gardener or 3 supercars or something?

I bet half this forum have had to make some lifestyle changes, I bet there are a few that will be completely fecked over financially by this pandemic, yet we're going to grant clemancy to those who are the very wealthiest? Madness.

 

[SilentWitness]

And that's the clubs choice. Not the players doing. The clubs can agree to sell players early if they want to save money like that. I'm sure, it wouldn't cause Richarlison any harm if Everton chose to do that, because he'll have more than enough suitors on the market who will take him on.

But they won't do that because it doesn't suit them. They want the players to take a paycut because they want to hold on to their own cash instead so Everton can still go out in the market and spunk more cash on the likes of Andre Gomes & Moise Kean. Essentially they want the players to take a pay cut to still fund their spending in the summer, or else they'd just ask the players to defer payments.

And no obviously not, the players are the biggest contributors to the growth and value of the league. They're the product & the reason the likes of Sky/PL/Clubs can shaft you for obscene ticket prices & TV subscriptions. You are right, you are getting massively fecked over. But it's not by the players, its by your own clubs.

From a moral standpoint it is the players choice too. There are plenty of examples of footballers donating money or taking pay cuts from their own position, aswell as their clubs. Players have a choice to sit and do nothing or donate/say I'll take a paycut. The clubs can choose to go forward with mandatory paycuts if they wish and they have every choice to do so.

Yeah, they're the biggest contributors but there are a bunch of footballers over the years who have chose a bit more money to go to the PL and sit and not play than go to a lesser club and play every week for less money. Of course there are examples of footballers 'leeching' and capatalising on it. As I said in my post I don't think any of the people involved in football should have that much money, from the players to the managers and chairmen. This is a moral issue as Jordan said in his piece. I don't really know why you'd wish to defend that but you do you mate.

I'm not blaming the players for being given that much. I'm saying that they shouldn't, but the fact they are puts them in a position where the morally correct thing to do would be to take a pay cut.

 

[Skills]

From a moral standpoint it is the players choice too. There are plenty of examples of footballers donating money or taking pay cuts from their own position, aswell as their clubs. Players have a choice to sit and do nothing or donate/say I'll take a paycut. The clubs can choose to go forward with mandatory paycuts if they wish and they have every choice to do so.

Yeah, they're the biggest contributors but there are a bunch of footballers over the years who have chose a bit more money to go to the PL and sit and not play than go to a lesser club and play every week for less money. Of course there are examples of footballers 'leeching' and capatalising on it. As I said in my post I don't think any of the people involved in football should have that much money, from the players to the managers and chairmen. This is a moral issue as Jordan said in his piece. I don't really know why you'd wish to defend that but you do you mate.

I'm not blaming the players for being given that much. I'm saying that they shouldn't, but the fact they are puts them in a position where the morally correct thing to do would be to take a pay cut.

Plenty of us can do more, but the only ones who should be doing more are the clubs. They're the ones who have hired the employees, yet they're the ones allowed to fob it off as the players responsibility instead.

The morally corrrect thing in my opinion is the players defer their payments or restructure their contracts to help the clubs cash flow now. The clubs then pay the players back by cutting down on their own transfer expenditure in the upcoming seasons.

If you're a player who's been conned into thinking that it's somehow your responsibility to pay for the clubs expenses, while the club would rather have hold onto their own money for future transfers (which may actually include replacing you at the same club), you've been horribly adviced.

 

[Rado_N]

Players will be taking cuts/deferrals on their income, it’s just a case of working out the legalities of it without it having unwanted implications.

The PFA and the leagues are already in discussions to sort this, and the PFA are the ones holding things up.

If it’s not resolved soon I expect clubs will just start acting on their own.

 

[LVGSdive]

Football clubs, and players, in self-serving, greedy cnuts shocker.

People in general are self serving, not just football players.

 

[Utdstar01]

I'm surprised PL clubs haven't done this already. If I'm not mistaken the Barcelona players have offered to do so. Seems like a small gesture for such wealthy individuals that would make a big difference.

Some clubs have just vowed to pay all their staff regardless. Some clubs on the other hand should be ashamed.

 

[He'sRaldo]

People in general are self serving, not just football players.

True

I'm sure a lot of fans have never donated to charity once in their lives, despite having the means to do so. Meanwhile footballers do this regularly and help the community, but of course all that's forgotten when they don't swiftly offer to donate their salary to help (while they're still working out the legal details of it).

I think it's so easy to demand someone give up their money and call them greedy for not doing so, when you're not in and have never been in their situation. I agree that football could be doing more to help, but then again we could all be doing more. Till a solution is reached, blame the clubs who won't sell their very expensive assets to fund their employees, rather than blaming the players who probably don't have a good knowledge of the club's situation and what is the most appropriate thing to do at this time.

 

[Eckers99]

People in general are self serving, not just football players.

While I do agree that, over time, people in general have become much more selfish and self-involved, there are definitely still people out there who are concerned about more than just themselves. The current circumstances have highlighted pretty clearly the gulf between those who choose to care for and educate others, in stark contrast with the groups - bankers, corporations, celebrities etc - who see an opportunity to make money or push their brand at a time when most people can only see a crisis.

The gulf between the haves and have nots is fairly huge and has been exacerbated by the 10 years of Tory austerity that stemmed from the little guy picking up the pieces because of the wanton greed of the world's banks.

Footballers standing aside and just looking out for themselves at a time when everyone else is worrying if they'll have a job or get to see relatives again, just pushes them closer to that group of an insulated and detached 1% and further away from the society that has paid their wages and helped make them the incredibly fortunate people they are.

Morally they're fecking bankrupt.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

4 PL clubs now doing this. Spurs, Bournemouth, Newcastle and Norwich.

What are your views on this? Fecking disgraceful in my opinion that these clubs are using taxpayers money via the government’s job retention scheme while still paying their multi million pound players.

Is there any way the government can refuse? This is blatant misuse of the scheme considering how much money these clubs make.

The footballers themselves are bloody cnuts as well. As far as I'm aware, only Leeds United have announced taking a paycut to subsidise the non playing staff.

I will cancel my subscription for EPL next season. I can't believe the selfishness of the EPL players and I am done with it. The players can hide behind PFA all they want, but they will not get my support anymore.

 

[RUCK4444]

True, makes me feel sick though. When you see family members struggling and knowing that there are people that have the means to help and just decide not to. I know that they have no obligation to use their money for things like this but it shows you how morally bankrupt the league is. I do wonder how much backlash they'll actually receive though if they choose not to take a pay cut.

I know a lot of friends and family who hate football due to the money involved in it but they've never really spoke about it on public forums. I tried to defend the footballers before and justify it due to the money that is pumped into it by us (the consumers) but at a time like this where we aren't receiving anything from the game because we can't watch them play it has really woke me up a bit to the ridiculousness of it all.

fecking around with toilet roll challenges just shows how much they are detached from everyone else in the world.

IF teams weren't having to furlough staff or let them go and could keep paying all of their staff it's a little more understandable (But still makes you question their morals). The fact that staff are being put on furlough and are being let go though gives them no excuse to not donate or offer to have a temporary paycut.

Oh yeah totally agree. I mean I feckin love this league and it’s brought me so much joy over the years but the vast majority of players are greedy greedy thick c@nts. To put it mildly.

I don’t believe it’s strictly a football issue though and a lot of players do a lot for charity but rather its symptomatic of modern youth of today.
That sentence makes me feel old but it’s so true, I’m 35 and the difference in that relatively short gap is frightening.

And I mean in almost every facet of day to day life. Outlook, ambition, greed, laziness, spoilt, sheltered, ignorance, vanity, intelligence.

Now of course there are exceptions to this but this is the standard.
If you asked one of them if they fancied donating a tenner to charity they would probably look at you as though you’ve handed them a cup of cold pi$$

In a way it’s not that they are bad people they just aren’t very good human beings.
Almost as though we as a race have de-evolved in some way, mentally at least.

 

[duffer]

Clubs like Man United (who make crazy profits) or Chelsea (owned by a billionaire) don't need their players to take paycuts in order to pay the dude who works in the car park.

 

[He'sRaldo]

Clubs like Man United (who make crazy profits) or Chelsea (owned by a billionaire) don't need their players to take paycuts in order to pay the dude who works in the car park.

I agree.

Here's a thought, which scenario would be preferable to fans of such clubs:

1) The club makes the players take pay cuts while they continue business as usual, keep the staff, and are able to get Sancho, Grealish, Partey, and any other muppet dream in the summer.

2) The club takes the burden of pay upon itself, we miss out on Sancho et al as others snap them up, and we are a bit behind financially and in the market, but we paid all of our workers.

These 2 look similar, except the burden is moved from one party to the other. Most likely, where fans would want the burden placed depends on their attachment to said party. Hence, they would most likely prefer if the "greedy players" took a pay cut while the club continued to run, business as usual.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

I agree.

Here's a thought, which scenario would be preferable to fans of such clubs:

1) The club makes the players take pay cuts while they continue business as usual, keep the staff, and are able to get Sancho, Grealish, Partey, and any other muppet dream in the summer.

2) The club takes the burden of pay upon itself, we miss out on Sancho et al as others snap them up, and we are a bit behind financially and in the market, but we paid all of our workers.

These 2 look similar, except the burden is moved from one party to the other. Most likely, where fans would want the burden placed depends on their attachment to said party. Hence, they would most likely prefer if the "greedy players" took a pay cut while the club continued to run, business as usual.

When thousands of people are dying everyday, millions of people out of work and are struggle to make the end meet, I doubt there is any other clubs supporters care where Sancho plays next season.

 

[Eckers99]

When thousands of people are dying everyday, millions of people out of work and are struggle to make the end meet, I doubt there is any other clubs supporters care where Sancho plays next season.

Yeah, it's starting to become irrelevant. 10m people unemployed in the USA, the worst it's been since the Great Depression, with the financial ripple effect about to hit global markets, and people are speculating about our ability to sign Jadon Sancho?

Feck me.

 

[He'sRaldo]

When thousands of people are dying everyday, millions of people out of work and are struggle to make the end meet, I doubt there is any other clubs supporters care where Sancho plays next season.

You'd be surprised, club loyalties still show when discussing whether or not to null the season.

And regardless, I think you miss the point of my question. Of course if the question is Sancho or lives, then most would choose lives, but the scenario was the club's money or the players' money, and I think a lot would rather the players' lost money as opposed to clubs they're a fan of.

And I agree it is a dire situation, so please don't make it as if I don't think so.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Yeah, it's starting to become irrelevant. 10m people unemployed in the USA, the worst it's been since the Great Depression, with the financial ripple effect about to hit global markets, and people are speculating about our ability to sign Jadon Sancho?

Feck me.

Most people are powerless to change any of the above, and just thinking about the potential consequences of what's going on is just going to drive you crazy, so a bit of chat about Jadon Sancho is a healthy distraction, chatting about stuff like football transfers has always been pretty meaningless anyway.

 

[PoTMS]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[PoTMS]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Gary Neville is dead to me... again.

 

[Eckers99]

Most people are powerless to change any of the above, and just thinking about the potential consequences of what's going on is just going to drive you crazy, so a bit of chat about Jadon Sancho is a healthy distraction, chatting about stuff like football transfers has always been pretty meaningless anyway.

It's a frivolous distraction in a thread devoted to Jadon Sancho. Not one discussing why obscenely rich football clubs and their players are pleading poverty at a time when all of society has a part to play in a global crisis.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Gary Neville is dead to me... again.

lots of clubs on the continent have come out and said they are taking a pay cut. This can be done quickly.

just shows how tone deaf football is generally.

lots of clubs have happily furloughed their non playing staff, who are taking real pay cuts which will be felt as they will be minimum wage/ poorly paid.

not a single PL player will suffer if they took a 20% pay cut now. Most wouldn’t even notice.

 

[PoTMS]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

No issue with clubs if they are paying ALL of their staff. Playing and non playing.

It’s outrageous clubs like spurms have furloughed their non playing staff and they are getting only 80% of their pay whilst their players carry on as usual.

 

[Lennon7]

Even 1 or 2 premier league players taking a 20% cut would be enough to keep paying all non-first team players/staff in full for 6 months at their club. We’re talking about staff on minimum wage here. A 20% cut from fecking Lingard alone would pay the 20% extra for the rest of the normal staff per week.