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

[Skills]

Ermmm why not just take it from their take home pay as opposed to pre tax?

I'm not great with numbers but have a missed something here.

Because that's not what the clubs are asking them to do. They're asking them to take 30% paycuts with the justification being that they won't need to furlough their non playing staff

Even then the clubs have more than enough cash. Liverpool are ready to spend 50m on Werner, Spurs were going to give Mourinho a huge transfer kitty. All of that stuff can wait.

 

[TheReligion]

Because that's not what the clubs are asking them to do. They're asking them to take 30% paycuts with the justification being that they won't need to furlough their non playing staff

Is that what Hancock said though? I just heard about the pay cut, not at what point it was coming from.

Surely you just deduct the money post tax and NI contributions. Not hard to put together? Put some back into the club and some to the NHS etc

 

[Cassidy]

Because that's not what the clubs are asking them to do. They're asking them to take 30% paycuts with the justification being that they won't need to furlough their non playing staff

Even then the clubs have more than enough cash. Liverpool are ready to spend 50m on Werner, Spurs were going to give Mourinho a huge transfer kitty. All of that stuff can wait.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...pp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebarweb

 

[Skills]

Is that what Hancock said though? I just heard about the pay cut, not at what point it was coming from.

Surely you just deduct the money post tax and NI contributions. Not hard to put together? Put some back into the club and some to the NHS etc

Why should the players put anything back into the club when the billionaires who own them are refusing to do so? Talking about Liverpool, Spurs and Newcastle. That money going straight to the NHS would be a lot more useful.

 

[Skills]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...pp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebarweb

I understand it's more difficult for some clubs. The clubs I'm specifically having a go at Spurs, Newcastle and now Liverpool.

Even then for Burnley, paycuts should be the last option. Deferrals and restructuring contracts (basically the players loaning the clubs money at 0% interest) is more preferable before they go to paycuts.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Spirit of Shankly response. Not quite criticism, not quite in favour...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.li...kly-demand-liverpool-explanation-18045107.amp

 

[TheReligion]

Why should the players put anything back into the club when the billionaires who own them are refusing to do so? Talking about Liverpool, Spurs and Newcastle. That money going straight to the NHS would be a lot more useful.

I'm not saying they should but smaller clubs may need a hand. Surely that's obvious? Not every club is owned by billionaires.

Anyway we digress. Take the money post deductions.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Always good when other people do the figure hunting I can't be bothered to. (Guessing not all their staff will be earning £2,500/m)

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rado_N]

Is that what Hancock said though? I just heard about the pay cut, not at what point it was coming from.

Surely you just deduct the money post tax and NI contributions. Not hard to put together? Put some back into the club and some to the NHS etc

Jesus Christ I thought Hancock was bad but you want them to fund the club’s responsibilities and also pay tax on income they’re not receiving?!

 

[Cassidy]

Always good when other people do the figure hunting I can't be bothered to. (Guessing not all their staff will be earning £2,500/m)

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

The point is, it should be costing the tax payer zero

 

[TheReligion]

Jesus Christ I thought Hancock was bad but you want them to fund the club’s responsibilities and also pay tax on income they’re not receiving?!

I don't want them to do anything personally I was simply saying if they decide to give some back to their club (baring in mind not every club is owned by billionaires) then they can do this post NI and tax deductions.

The point I am making is theres a very simple way to avoid doing what the PFA are suggesting will happen by taking money from take home pay rather than pre other deductions.

 

[Smores]

It's a disgrace, a failure in morals from the club and a failure in competence from the government in allowing such abuse.

Hopefully new tax legislation will be brought in aimed at retrospectively reclaiming the money from these abusers. Some brands really have used coronvirus to shit all over their public image.

 

[Scarecrow]

I'm not saying they should but smaller clubs may need a hand. Surely that's obvious? Not every club is owned by billionaires.

Anyway we digress. Take the money post deductions.

That's one of the problems the players have with the proposal. They are planning to create a fund of their own with donations from their net salaries because they don't trust the clubs.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

The point it should be costing the tax payer zero

Sorry, not sure what that means (is there a missing "is"?). If so, totally agree. Bigger clubs (incl United) shouldn't be considering the Retention scheme, small ones probably should, the difficulty is where a fair cut off is.

But after record turnover and huge profits, it's definitely not above Liverpool. Pay the staff, pay the tax.

 

[Valley Blue]

The PL clubs using the furlough scheme is disgraceful. I have worked in relatively senior positions, in sport for a number of years, including football.
I therefore appreciate the difficulties being experienced by lower level clubs acutely, they are often the heart of their communities, and will of course need assistance, from the government like many other relatively small businesses.
However a club like Liverpool, with their huge turnover & profitability, doing the same morally repugnant, the PR fallout from these actions, and the public perception of football in the future, will quite rightly be changed forever.
This by the way is not meant to be a purely LFC rant, I feel exactly the same about Spurs & the geordies, as I would if it was my club.

 

[HackeyC]

Rooney weights in:

"if players come out and say they can't agree or are not willing to cut by 30%, even if the real reasons are that it will financially ruin some, it will be presented as 'Rich Players Refuse Pay Cut '"

Little sympathy if a person with an earnings window of 12 years is spending so much money that they can't afford a 20/30% cut when non playing staff at some clubs are being asked to take 20% at a minimum. If you earn 60k per year you will be taking a 50% pay cut on the furlough scheme! Some of these individuals just don't get it.

 

[Utdstar01]

'Financially ruin' somebody earning 100's if not 10's of thousands a week?

 

[SilentWitness]

The lowest weekly wage in the Everton squad is 25k according to a report made last year but since then people like DCL and Holgate have been given new contracts so it might be even higher. If you are earning 25k a week and you're financially ruined then yikes. I sympathise a little with what Rooney is saying and there will now be a scenario where footballers will lose if they donate as it looks like they want publicity and if they don't then they will be abused (Nobody should be abused but I also don't think it is unfair to wish that those that are rich can donate). In the PL the majority of players should be able to make good charitable donations. I agree with him that it should be done on a case by case basis as people earn different amounts so there needs to be some balance.

If anything, this is also a good time for the PFA, the PL, whoever is involved, to analyse footballers and how they are spending it. I know that they are allowed to use that money for whatever they like but if there are players earning that much and they are on the verge of financial ruin in these situations then they need a bit of counselling/financial advice. In my early 20s when I started earning I was recklessly spending and a similar scenario of losing money happened to me and it's taken a while to build up. I think some of these players will need help and advice and it's a chance to now give it to them.

Some people will be mentally wired to spend and others to save and it's about getting the balance right. My partner is probably earning 4-5k a month, is going to be furloughed soon and will be reduced down to 2.5k but she was sensible and lives in a place that she can comfortably still pay rent and save on 2.5k. That extra money she was having was basically all being saved. She's obviously wired and trained herself to do that in case of scenarios like this and due to footballers having a timespan on their career they definitely need people who can advise them to live within similar means. Not to that extreme perhaps but to a level where they aren't earning that amount and then start struggling.

 

[Eckers99]

'Financially ruin' somebody earning 100's if not 10's of thousands a week?

Especially ridiculous in light of the anonymous footballer on 50k a week who recently admitted they've got so much they don't know what to spend it on.

 

[Amerifan]

I’m going to be crucified for pointing this out, but the officers of corporations don’t have freewill, they are bound by a fiduciary obligation. That means acting in the best financial interests of the investors at all times. For example, if government make money available to the business, the officers, all other things being equal, have an obligation to take it. Failure to do so could open the corporation to lawsuits by the shareholders. In extreme cases, officers could face prosecution.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess in this instance it could be argued the financial impact (in the form of lost goodwill) of the bad PR generated by accepting government support would exceed the sums offered. Who knows.

The point is, acting in the best financial interests of the shareholders at all times isn’t an option: it’s the law. I imagine it’s even worse for international clubs, given they operate under multiple sets of laws. Not knowing the individual circumstances of the clubs, it’s hard to say whether the officers of Liverpool or Spurs or Newcastle are being greedy cnuts or behaving responsibly under corporate law.

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

West Brom statement:

• Club is currently financially stable and remains so for foreseeable future
• Cannot be sure if planned income will be received or whether they'll need to issue refunds for existing commitments
• Operations completely closed down, receiving virtually no income
• CEO has decided for duration of lockdown that he will take a 100% cut in his salary
• Other members of senior management team have also offered to take significant reductions in their remuneration
• They've considered using furlough approach for non-playing staff unable to work and have made plans for that eventuality
• They've not been required to sanction it but if lockdown continues then decision will have to be changed
• If it is changed, they pledge to make up the 20% shortfall

 

[RUCK4444]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

West Brom statement:

• Club is currently financially stable and remains so for foreseeable future
• Cannot be sure if planned income will be received or whether they'll need to issue refunds for existing commitments
• Operations completely closed down, receiving virtually no income
• CEO has decided for duration of lockdown that he will take a 100% cut in his salary
• Other members of senior management team have also offered to take significant reductions in their remuneration
• They've considered using furlough approach for non-playing staff unable to work and have made plans for that eventuality
• They've not been required to sanction it but if lockdown continues then decision will have to be changed
• If it is changed, they pledge to make up the 20% shortfall

Professional statement, I can respect that and the steps they are taking.

Clear and honest approach.

I hope the Liverpool board are cringing up their own arseh@les

 

[fps]

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.

Seems sensible

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

I’m going to be crucified for pointing this out, but the officers of corporations don’t have freewill, they are bound by a fiduciary obligation. That means acting in the best financial interests of the investors at all times. For example, if government make money available to the business, the officers, all other things being equal, have an obligation to take it. Failure to do so could open the corporation to lawsuits by the shareholders. In extreme cases, officers could face prosecution.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’d guess in this instance it could be argued the financial impact (in the form of lost goodwill) of the bad PR generated by accepting government support would exceed the sums offered. Who knows.

The point is, acting in the best financial interests of the shareholders at all times isn’t an option: it’s the law. I imagine it’s even worse for international clubs, given they operate under multiple sets of laws. Not knowing the individual circumstances of the clubs, it’s hard to say whether the officers of Liverpool or Spurs or Newcastle are being greedy cnuts or behaving responsibly under corporate law.

Per accounts, they've got 675 non playing staff. Say an average of £2k a month, that's about £4m a quarter. So the Govt scheme would save them £3.2m?

If they think the negative PR is worth £3.2m, they're either getting some shit advice or simply don't care about the UK taxpayer...

 

[Dante]

Introduce some temporary new tax bands to help fund the NHS/Police in the crisis.

70% for anything over £250,000 pa
90% for anything over £500,000 pa

Revoke them in 3 months. Job done. Nice and clean.

 

[Zen86]

What do these people actually spend 100k/week on? Besides cocaine and hookers, obviously.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

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.

See, this is the thing I'm confused about. The employees aren't being furloughed because of lack of work, they're being furloughed to isolate.

Why would you assume that?

Because I can't imagine a government scheme is easy to navigate.

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 imagine

Again, they aren't being furloughed because of lack of work, it's for safety.

If found this on Wired earlier:
"Companies can find out whether they are eligible to claim furlough for their employees in relatively simple steps. First, prove that its employees cannot do their jobs due to the coronavirus measures put in place by the government. Second, notify employees of their new ‘furloughed’ status. And finally, submit information to HMRC about furloughed employees to set up a system for reimbursement"

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-furlough-scheme-job-protection

And that bolded bit says they have to set up a system with the government to pay the employees, so that system must take some time to remove.

 

[Phurry]

[

See, this is the thing I'm confused about. The employees aren't being furloughed because of lack of work, they're being furloughed to isolate.

Again, they aren't being furloughed because of lack of work, it's for safety.

If found this on Wired earlier:
"Companies can find out whether they are eligible to claim furlough for their employees in relatively simple steps. First, prove that its employees cannot do their jobs due to the coronavirus measures put in place by the government. Second, notify employees of their new ‘furloughed’ status. And finally, submit information to HMRC about furloughed employees to set up a system for reimbursement"

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/uk-furlough-scheme-job-protection

Wired are wrong; staff are being placed on furlough if there is no actual work for them. My employers are a classic example; of 14 major projects, 10 are stopped due to the need to save money. As a result, the personnel assigned to those projects are no longer required at this time as their work on those projects has stopped and we do not need them for anything else currently, they will be getting furloughed. I’ve seen the actual policy that has been agreed with the employer, trade unions and HMRC.
Regarding the second point, that is already defined. Note the word “reimbursement”, for now the companies will pay their staff, then claim it back from the government via HMRC once the actual mechanism is in place.

 

[Fts 74]

Although he's an idiot, good to see Piers Morgan calling the scousers out on this on gmtv.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Although he's an idiot, good to see Piers Morgan calling the scousers out on this on gmtv.

Yeah I feel a bit dirty but am in complete agreement here on Liverpool and on Matt Hancock.

 

[Phurry]

From the BBC...

Captains of Premier League clubs, led by Jordan Henderson, have been in talks to make charitable donations

I’m assuming they haven’t actually read the release from Man Utd last week and what the players have already agreed to?

 

[arnie_ni]

From the BBC...

I’m assuming they haven’t actually read the release from Man Utd last week and what the players have already agreed to?

Has to be all about liverpool

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

From the BBC...

I’m assuming they haven’t actually read the release from Man Utd last week and what the players have already agreed to?

They'll do anything to put Liverpool in a positive light.

 

[Damien]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Eli Zee]

Why is the onus on the players to take a paycut and not the clubs to cut their own transfer expenditure?

To be fair, lots of us took wage cuts. We can’t work, or work is slower than usual. For players to continue with 100% of their wages when they are sitting at home doing nothing is a bit silly, don’t you think? If the club will pay the players themself, it should pay the staff themself and not ask for tax payer money.

 

[arnie_ni]

They reversed the decision. Damage still done

 

[FootyGirl88]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

Their intentions were clear and the stench remains. Only because everyone said how scummy they were being they made the right decision. Or were forced into it more like.

 

[Bwuk]

Scummy pr*cks doing this to protect their image.

 

[horsechoker]

Scummy pr*cks doing this to protect their image.

Now it's been swept under the rug lets hold hands and sing You'll Never Walk Alone.