In response to your replies, it's morality vs business
Well, I think some won't because of the morals but some won't also, because they'll probably think of the possible backlash.In response to your replies, it's morality vs business
I'm not defending it. But the Liverpool owner won't care what anybody says online
If they are the only club doing it, it might be an image issue but they aren't.
I can see other clubs following suit. Business wise (and logic) dictates they save their money and use somebody else's money
Because there are going to be hundreds of powerful enormous businesses abusing this. At least hundreds. That’s what happens when something like this has to be rushed through.Why did they not just initially carve out PL teams and say the scheme wouldn't be applicable to them?
Well said. I’m disappointed, don’t know whose decision it ultimately is, but I’d say FSG’s and they look at the business side of things. But I really don’t like it, it’s just wrong. Any money spent in the summer will leave a sour taste after this decision.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Think anyone who's close to the club will agree with Carra, good on him as well for taking a swipe at the club.
When a club that recorded a record profit does it, yes they look bad.Premier League need to also take some blame for this. As soon as the Chancellor announced the furlough scheme the PL should have had a penalty attached to any of the 20 clubs who take advantage. This isn't just Liverpool who look bad here but also the sport as a whole in the country.
The amount has been budgeted/allocated, if the football clubs don't take it then other businesses will and we will pay it with our taxes anyway.I think it's quite obvious given some clubs are paying 10% of their staff hundreds of thousands a week whilst taking advantage of a government scheme to cover the other 90% of their lower paid staff. This is not a time for businesses to be 'taking advantage' of government schemes. They can afford to pay all staff if the highest earners took marginal pay cuts during this time. This is precisely what is happening at my workplace. The disparity between what the players earn to what the rest of the staff will earn is massive and not really seen in most other business types. It's morally wrong for Premier League football clubs to use the scheme. I don't why some people on here see this as me defending billionaire owners.
Just remember we, as taxpayers, are paying those furloughed staff wages with your taxes and that pot is ever increasing. We will be paying that national debt back for years.
Not all business owners are the same that's why. The longer this goes on I reckon more will take it upWell, I think some won't because of the morals but some won't also, because they'll probably think of the possible backlash.
If it's about business, most sensible companies nowadays consider reputational risk and long term impacts as part of key decisions. In a world of ever increasing social media impact and a world that will (at some point) look back on big company's decisions during Covid 19, my personal opinion would be .. pay the money, the potential downside is miles higher than saving £x (or $x).
(EDIT. Honest question. Why do you think United aren't doing this? ... if it's about business? Both US billionaire owned?)
almost universal condemnation from Liverpool fans on RAWKThey’ll be a big U-turn from Liverpool Football Club on this. PR disaster. Stupid bastards.
I know the Liverpool fans are against it and I’m glad as I didn’t expect it from them. It’s the club I’m talking about, can see them backtracking on this decision in a few days.almost universal condemnation from Liverpool fans on RAWK
https://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=345137.0
And the clubs would quite rightly deserve it for this fecking travesty. Don't think football clubs realize just how difficult the government can make things for them, and they aren't like another business that can just pick up and move to another country.Well when the government brings in a law to ensure a big percentage of any transfer fee goes to the taxman don't be surprised.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The biggest surprise for me is not that Liverpool FC have behaved in a selfish and greedy corporate manner. It's that they have seemingly done so after Daniel Levy, Mike Ashley and their respective clubs have spent several days in the stocks for their selfish cuntery.I know the Liverpool fans are against it and I’m glad as I didn’t expect it from them. It’s the club I’m talking about, can see them backtracking on this decision in a few days.
From how I understand it, I really like the way they have handled this. The easy thing would have been to bow to the clubs and billionaire owners, Tory politicians and pitchfork outragers, at the expense of the NHS and society as a whole. By holding fire they now have the opportunity to financially support the wider society. Hopefully it comes to fruition.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is spot on. Which is why Liverpool fans who were earlier saying that they hoped the players would take a cut to pay for the furloughed staff are in the wrong as well. That only benefits Liverpool the club and fecks the rest of the country over.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Souness still blames Pogba for not paying the wages of LFC casual staff .......
"The proposed 30% salary deduction over a 12-month period equates to over £500m in wage reductions and a loss in tax contributions of over £200m to the government. What effect does this loss of earning to the government mean for the NHS? Was this considered in the Premier League proposal and did the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock factor this in when asking players to take a salary cut? "Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
It’s not Newcastle, Tottenham & Liverpool though. It’s Ashley, Levy & FSG. Rich people who don't want to lose a bit of what they have to do a lot of good.The biggest surprise for me is not that Liverpool FC have behaved in a selfish and greedy corporate manner. It's that they have seemingly done so after Daniel Levy, Mike Ashley and their respective clubs have spent several days in the stocks for their selfish cuntery.
Forget decency, you'd hope that any club with a modicum of business sense and self awareness would realise the resulting bad PR wouldn't be worth the relatively paltry savings on lower paid staff.
Liverpool are now Mike Ashley. I mean fecking come on.
I don't want to get into an essentialism debate about what makes a football club, but these are statements coming out from within the club, by people and positions high up in the organisations, about policies decided upon by these very same people and released under the football club banner.It’s not Newcastle, Tottenham & Liverpool though. It’s Ashley, Levy & FSG. Rich people who don't want to lose a bit of what they have to do a lot of good.
Agree on: Liverpool is abusing the loophole in the law.It shows that the furlough laws need some caveats to be introduced.
This is just gross misuse of the law. Just couple of weeks of no football should not come to this.
I am pretty sure we ll do it too
source: https://www.telegraphindia.com/spor...in-crisis-on-coronavirus-pandemic/cid/1761842"Manchester United players will donate 30 per cent of their wages to local hospitals and health services in the first major coronavirus gesture from a full Premier League squad. The move was the idea of club captain Harry Maguire and was given full backing by the players, the Daily Mail reported on Friday.
United are continuing to pay all matchday staff during the crisis and have not sought to use the government’s furlough scheme to help struggling companies protect jobs."
Very strange, seems an obvious solution to this would've been to require some sort of liquidity test/threshold that would need to be crossed before you can even consider going this route. Would automatically have kicked out all the strong businesses that would try and abuse the system.Because there are going to be hundreds of powerful enormous businesses abusing this. At least hundreds. That’s what happens when something like this has to be rushed through.
Basically, the moment there is work for a furloughed member of staff they should be recalled and the business start paying their wages in full without government support. Using my employers for example, they’ve stated that you can do what you want (except work for them obviously) whilst on furlough, but will be available on 48hrs notice for return to work.If Liverpool are furloughing their non-playing staff, I assume that means they will not be able to unfurlough them at a whim, so if the prem restarts before lockdown ends, in June or with a tournament, they'll have to do it without medical staff, physios etc?
If Liverpool are furloughing their non-playing staff, I assume that means they will not be able to unfurlough them at a whim, so if the prem restarts before lockdown ends, in June or with a tournament, they'll have to do it without medical staff, physios etc?
Would slow the whole thing down to much for those that actually need it. Its slow enough as isVery strange, seems an obvious solution to this would've been to require some sort of liquidity test/threshold that would need to be crossed before you can even consider going this route. Would automatically have kicked out all the strong businesses that would try and abuse the system.
If Liverpool are furloughing their non-playing staff, I assume that means they will not be able to unfurlough them at a whim, so if the prem restarts before lockdown ends, in June or with a tournament, they'll have to do it without medical staff, physios etc?
Its a minimum 3 weeks but after that if you have work on tuesday morning they can tell you monday night and youd have to come in id imagineBasically, the moment there is work for a furloughed member of staff they should be recalled and the business start paying their wages in full without government support. Using my employers for example, they’ve stated that you can do what you want (except work for them obviously) whilst on furlough, but will be available on 48hrs notice for return to work.
There's a huge, huge difference between donating & taking a pay cut. I'm one of those guys, who's been strongly against the players taking paycuts to save the clubs cash but I also want them donating equivalent amount to charity while football is down.Rank from Liverpool and any other clubs that follow this line. If any club decides to furlough staff then they should be banned from making transfers when football resumes as you can in no way try to justfify spending 50m on a player after not being able to pay the staff you have clearly been able to pay throughout the whole season.
I know some people disagree with me that footballers should have to take paycuts/donate, but my issue is with every rich person, not just with the footballers. I wish for the best format of money exchange that will benefit those that need it the most. If that is in care package donations from footballers/owners/businessmen/government millionaires then that's fine. That's all I have wanted the moment I entered this thread. Every person that earns an x amount of stupid money to be donating a portion of that or taking the pay cut (as has now been shown due to tax purposes this isn't the right option) to help out those in need. All of them and I don't want that to be misconstrued that I am just attacking footballers as I do not blame them for earning that amount of money or that this situation has happened.
Ermmm why not just take it from their take home pay as opposed to pre tax?"The proposed 30% salary deduction over a 12-month period equates to over £500m in wage reductions and a loss in tax contributions of over £200m to the government. What effect does this loss of earning to the government mean for the NHS? Was this considered in the Premier League proposal and did the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock factor this in when asking players to take a salary cut? "
Fantastic.
