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

[PoTMS]

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.

 

[Skills]

How did I know Spurs and Newcastle would be on the list

What's more disgraceful is that they'll furlough playing staff for a couple of grand and then go out still spunk millions in the transfer market. Cut your transfer budgets and actually pay the staff you have.

 

[Boneli]

It’s the PFA that are the problem. They have been advising their members to reject any attempts from clubs to cut wages, and are pushing for a wage deferral at worst so everyone still gets paid in full. Gordon Taylor needs to be fired out of a cannon.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Well at least Spurs still have a cheese room.

 

[Oggmonster]

It’s the PFA that are the problem. They have been advising their members to reject any attempts from clubs to furlough them, and are pushing for a wage deferral at worst so everyone still gets paid in full. Gordon Taylor needs to be fired out of a cannon.

There's a share of blame going round for everyone but it seems a bit cnutish that a bunch of multi millionaire footballers aren't taking paycuts to help even slightly. They live in a world of their own it's just not a good look.

 

[awop]

It’s the PFA that are the problem. They have been advising their members to reject any attempts from clubs to cut wages, and are pushing for a wage deferral at worst so everyone still gets paid in full. Gordon Taylor needs to be fired out of a cannon.

What's the idea behind that though ? That's very bad PR for the league and every player/club. Is that worth it ?

 

[arnie_ni]

Havent utd said they'll pay staff in full during this?

 

[FlawlessThaw]

How did I know Spurs and Newcastle would be on the list

What's more disgraceful is that they'll furlough playing staff for a couple of grand and then go out still spunk millions in the transfer market. Cut your transfer budgets and actually pay the staff you have.

Pretty much, personally I do think it is a disgrace football clubs are taking advantage of this. I'd feel the same way about big multi-million pound companies of similar revenue.

At the end of the day clubs could find other ways to save money without having to resort to relying on the government for starters.

 

[Skills]

It’s the PFA that are the problem. They have been advising their members to reject any attempts from clubs to cut wages, and are pushing for a wage deferral at worst so everyone still gets paid in full. Gordon Taylor needs to be fired out of a cannon.

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

 

[Boneli]

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

Because the big outgoing for clubs is the wage bill? They aren’t signing anybody right now, the window is shut.

The solution to me seems really simple. The players agree a wage cut, on the condition that clubs who take that option have a transfer embargo for next season and can’t exploit the situation and go out and spend a fortune with all the money they’ve saved.

 

[Skills]

Because the big outgoing for clubs is the wage bill? They aren’t signing anybody right now, the window is shut.

The solution to me seems really simple. The players agree a wage cut, on the condition that clubs who take that option have a transfer embargo for next season and can’t exploit the situation and go out and spend a fortune with all the money they’ve saved.

Then they'll just use it to spunk an even bigger fortune when the window after is open.

The clubs should honour their current commitments which are their playing and non-playing staff. Deferrals seem sensible, as the clubs can for now ensure that their more vulnerable non-playing staff is paid upfront. But then also stops them from abusing it down the line to spend that cash on transfers.

 

[Saddy]

Christ it's not bloody difficult to think this through in the Premier League clubs in particular.

Using Spurs as an example - Levy drew 7M last year ? and top players are earning 50k per week plus - work out how to divert money from the top earners and chairman into the lower paid workers and also donate money into the local community to feed children & support the NHS. It's just typical that they appear to be one of the first clubs to take advantage of the furlough scheme instead of looking within the business and showing some sensitivity of the situation - I stand to be corrected if they have done but I doubt it !

 

[Black.Ghost]

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

Because they are multi-millionaires. If I were a player and saw that the club I played for were furloughing non-playing staff, I'd be volunteering to take a pay cut or making some my salary available to ensure those that work hard so I can lead a priviledged life have what they need and don't go without.

I understand with the smaller clubs where players are not paid silly money, but how can any player in the PL sit back and be comfortable knowing that regular employees are being furloughed but you still rake in tens or hundreds of thousands per week? It's no wonder people say football is morally corrupt, utterly disgraceful. The players should have been in there from the start making sure the non-playing staff are looked after.

I also don't think the furlough should be applicable to the big clubs unless every player is included as well. It's not like they are still playing while the non-playing staff are sat at home.

Genuinely making me reconsider continuing with football post CV. Disgusted by the four clubs that have done this so far. And I liked Bournemouth before that having lived there for a while. Absolutely not surprised at Spurs and Newcastle. All employees or none. Never does it better summarise take from the poor to give to the rich (I know the non-playing staff probably aren't poor in most cases, but you get the idea). Football needs to take a proper look at itself after all this and get a grip of the money situation. Stop with the insane TV rights deals, lower prices and get the fans back to watching the game they fell in love with as a kid.

 

[Skills]

Because they are multi-millionaires. If I were a player and saw that the club I played for were furloughing non-playing staff, I'd be volunteering to take a pay cut or making some my salary available to ensure those that work hard so I can lead a priviledged life have what they need and don't go without.

I understand with the smaller clubs where players are not paid silly money, but how can any player in the PL sit back and be comfortable knowing that regular employees are being furloughed but you still rake in tens or hundreds of thousands per week? It's no wonder people say football is morally corrupt, utterly disgraceful. The players should have been in there from the start making sure the non-playing staff are looked after.

I also don't think the furlough should be applicable to the big clubs unless every player is included as well. It's not like they are still playing while the non-playing staff are sat at home.

Genuinely making me reconsider continuing with football post CV. Disgusted by the four clubs that have done this so far. And I liked Bournemouth before that having lived there for a while. Absolutely not surprised at Spurs and Newcastle. All employees or none. Never does it better summarise take from the poor to give to the rich (I know the non-playing staff probably aren't poor in most cases, but you get the idea). Football needs to take a proper look at itself after all this and get a grip of the money situation. Stop with the insane TV rights deals, lower prices and get the fans back to watching the game they fell in love with as a kid.

And the guys who own the clubs and the clubs themselves are multibillionaires or worth 100s of millions. Why isn't the onus on them, to dig up cash from within their own pockets which are much, much bigger and deeper?

 

[Sandikan]

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.

Their actual profits probably aren't higher than major companies though.

Do you think big companies shouldn't furlough either?

 

[Skills]

Their actual profits probably aren't higher than major companies though.

Do you think big companies shouldn't furlough either?

Isn't that because they go out every summer and spend 10s of millions on buying more players? It's easy, just don't spend as much on transfers. 1 less N'Dombele for Spurs next summer will save them more than enough cash.

 

[Sandikan]

Isn't that because they go out every summer and spend 10s of millions on buying more players? It's easy, just don't spend as much on transfers. 1 less N'Dombele for Spurs next summer will save them more than enough cash.

It does seem ridiculous they can tap into the gov fund, but i dare say itd be a minefield deciding what companies should be allowed and shouldn't be.

Should major companies paying their chairman 4m a year still get them for instance?

 

[Redfan94]

Any footballer with the slightest remnant of a moral compass should step in and subsidise the 20% for the staff effected by this.

for a lot of these staff, particularly the Spurs staff living in and around London, that 20% drop in wages could be the difference between paying their rent/mortgage or being able to do a weekly shop so on so forth.

The players see these workers day in day out, whether it’s the canteen staff at the training ground or the kitmen and women or whatever, the least they could do is take a slight pay cut to support them.

 

[Skills]

It does seem ridiculous they can tap into the gov fund, but i dare say itd be a minefield deciding what companies should be allowed and shouldn't be.

Should major companies paying their chairman 4m a year still get them for instance?

It's the PL/UEFA who need to regulate this in the same way as FFP. If the clubs can't afford to honor their current commitments, they have no right to go out and spunk 10s/100s of millions on transfers in the upcoming seasons.

 

[Brightonian]

Football clubs make tiny profits relative to the amount of money running through them. Many of them make losses as a matter of course. They do not have cash reserves to call on to cover suddenly losing so much of their income, and are almost all likely to financially struggle.

The reason they don't make big profits is that all that income goes straight out on player wages, exec wages and transfers. So, three things need to happen:

Clubs should be looking to dramatically cut transfer expenditure this summer.
Execs should be taking significant wage cuts.
Players should be taking significant wage cuts.

This is by its very nature a temporary situation, and all three of those financial hits can comfortably be absorbed by their respective parties.

For me, the transfer window should simply be cancelled. Clubs can sign free agents this summer, of course, but no club-to-club transfers should be allowed to take place until January. That's a short delay which is not going to radically derail any club's financial situation or any player's career. It allows all clubs to immediately commit to making that saving*, allowing them to cover running costs and pay wages for the duration of the crisis with less government support needed, knowing that richer/less financially prudent rivals will not be allowed to get a jump on them over the summer.

*Before anyone jumps in with the argument that the money one club spends on a transfer, another club earns: a significant portion of any transfer expenditure is lost on agent fees, signing bonuses and other costs. Overall, the clubs net spend a lot of money every window, and this is money that should be retained this season, as I say, to cover running costs and wages during the crisis.

 

[Redfan94]

And the guys who own the clubs and the clubs themselves are multibillionaires or worth 100s of millions. Why isn't the onus on them, to dig up cash from within their own pockets which are much, much bigger and deeper?

Because the clubs, chairmen and owners have already taken their stance.

If the players refuse to intervene because of your way of thinking, everyone misses out.

The players coming and forward and offering to subsidise these worker’s pay just highlights how morally wrong it is of their employer in the first place.

 

[Black.Ghost]

And the guys who own the clubs and the clubs themselves are multibillionaires or worth 100s of millions. Why isn't the onus on them, to dig up cash from within their own pockets which are much, much bigger and deeper?

This issue is really around employees more than owners. Otherwise, do you extend it to other businesses as well? You can't furlough your lower level employees while still paying millions to your players, in the same way I wouldn't expect an airline to furlough check-in staff and then continue to pay their execs full whack while asking for Govt bailouts. If a business can survive completely through this without any help, great. If not, sacrifices should always be at the top first because they are the ones most able to take the hit.

All that being said, if owners are in a position to take some of the hit and really help, they should look to do so. That doesn't matter if it's football or a small design business or somewhere in between. It's an easy win in terms of optics. Across the world we are in for some tough financial times. Money shouldn't be hoarded in the pockets of a few when so many could be helped.

 

[duffer]

Not sure what Chelsea players are going regarding this but I'm not sure I'd take a paycut to save Roman a few quid.

I know Chelsea are letting NHS staff live at the hotel for free for at least 2 months so I would be surprised if we were dicks about furloughs.

 

[Cutch]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

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

 

[Skills]

Because the clubs, chairmen and owners have already taken their stance.

If the players refuse to intervene because of your way of thinking, everyone misses out.

The players coming and forward and offering to subsidise these worker’s pay just highlights how morally wrong it is of their employer in the first place.

Then vilify them for being the cnuts that they are and press them to change their minds.

 

[The Original]

There's a share of blame going round for everyone but it seems a bit cnutish that a bunch of multi millionaire footballers aren't taking paycuts to help even slightly. They live in a world of their own it's just not a good look.

Might surprise you how many professional footballers live from paycheck to paycheck. Different income, different expenses.

 

[The Original]

It does seem ridiculous they can tap into the gov fund, but i dare say itd be a minefield deciding what companies should be allowed and shouldn't be.

Should major companies paying their chairman 4m a year still get them for instance?

aren't football clubs and footballers among the highest contributors to tax revenue in the UK? Makes sense that they should benefit equally. It's not as though there isn't enough to go round everyone who needs it.

 

[Skills]

This issue is really around employees more than owners. Otherwise, do you extend it to other businesses as well? You can't furlough your lower level employees while still paying millions to your players, in the same way I wouldn't expect an airline to furlough check-in staff and then continue to pay their execs full whack while asking for Govt bailouts. If a business can survive completely through this without any help, great. If not, sacrifices should always be at the top first because they are the ones most able to take the hit.

Here's the thing, players aren't employees though - it's why the clubs won't just furlough them, and the players can't just resign and join another club. The players are assets who have a limited shelf-life in football.

It's like your mortgage - the banks aren't giving people 3 month discount on their mortgages, but instead offering 3 month deferrals/holidays (where the interest still rolls over because they still want to make $$$). It's the same with the players, the clubs want to retain ownership of the players (thus their transfer values - like you want to retain ownership of your house) so they need to honor their contracts. It seems like the players are open to deferrals so I don't see a problem. If they need players to take a paycut to free up some immediate cash - they should agree to pay the player back at a later date or from his transfer fee when they sell him.

 

[Mb194dc]

Don't have a problem with it. The government should have limited who the scheme was available to if they didn't want football clubs to use it.

Football will be one of the hardest industries hit by the covid 19 economic crisis, financially football has been in a bubble which will now pop bigly. Costs like wages are fixed, if revenue starts plummeting clubs start losing money hand over fist in a very short space of time.

A lot of clubs haven't woken up yet to how bad it's going to get.

 

[V.O.]

I'd never heard the word 'furlough' in my life before this story.

 

[arnie_ni]

Wonder if the figures were available how much of a wage cut it would take to pay all these employees for months. Wouldnt surprise me that if the players all sacrificed one week wage it would cover these furloughed staff for a few months.

At the very least are these 4 clubs topping up the 20 percent so they get full wages?

 

[Oggmonster]

Might surprise you how many professional footballers live from paycheck to paycheck. Different income, different expenses.

Maybe so but so do the rest of the world and the very same people that are now having to take this furlough scheme. Maybe I'm not being fair on them I don't know but people that are making 50, 100, 200k a week and refusing to part with any of it to help others are dicks for me.

 

[Art Vandelay]

What's the idea behind that though ? That's very bad PR for the league and every player/club. Is that worth it ?

I'd imagine it's to protect players lower down the leagues that aren't paid as much and don't have the same means, which is fair enough. The issues arise when you get to the players that are making more in a week than a lot of people get in a year and upwards. The PFA are right to protect their members that need protecting, but there needs to be some distinction between that and millionaires getting the same treatment.

 

[Sandikan]

aren't football clubs and footballers among the highest contributors to tax revenue in the UK? Makes sense that they should benefit equally. It's not as though there isn't enough to go round everyone who needs it.

The government don't just have a spare pot they can dip into for the billions, that's billions of unforeseen emergency money that they'll be shelling out.

Companies and tax payers will be paying this back for the foreseeable in higher contributions.

 

[Ventura]

Barcelona and other clubs are taking massive pay cuts. PL players should do the same, if the clubs need it. Yes, they have the right to be paid in full, but it doesn't hurt to show some decency.


https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52092809

 

[HackeyC]

I'd love to see the ratio of player wages and salaries plus C suite vs the rest of the employees. In fact, a quick look and it's easy to infer something not a million miles away:

United 2019
£332m employee costs with 940 employees of which 104 Players, 163 Technical and Coaching and 673 Other including admin and marketing.

Player Split 104 (guesstimate)
Female 40
Male 1st Team 25
Male Other 49

Wages Cost Estimate
Admin and Marketing £70k/pa (high?) = £40m
Technical and Coaching a £150k/pa = £24m
Female Players £100k/pa (high?) = £4m
Male 1st Team £6m/pa (low?)= £150m
Male Others £2m/pa (high?)= £98m
Execs = £11m/pa
Other = £9m/pa

On that basis I would say that the well paid male players plus execs and a portion of coaching staff are absorbing c. 70% of the wage bill, probably across 70 people. If they agreed to a pay reduction of 25% they could give complete security to the other 870 people in the business plus any flexible gig economy staff. That reduction would come from their huge level of disposable income, any reduction to those on lower income levels would not.

The players can do what they like but they shouldn't. Come contract renewal time you can guarantee there will be reduced salaries and major disruption contingencies as common practice across the industry.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

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

Yeah I heard all that yesterday. There weren't many who disagreed with him.

 

[Skills]

If we want players to be treated like normal employees, would you guys also be open for them to then get other employment rights that normal employees have? So for example, the clubs cleaner can go and take a job at Lidl with a few weeks notice if he wishes.

So if a player wants to leave he should then also be allowed to leave for free after an agreed notice period and play for another club. I mean, if Pogba/Rashford want to leave in the summer the club shouldn't be able to hold them here against there wish until someone pays them a transfer fee. That sounds like another level of bullshit.

 

[Sandikan]

If we want players to be treated like normal employees, would you guys also be open for them to then get other employment rights that normal employees have? So for example, the clubs cleaner can go and take a job at Lidl with a few weeks notice if he wishes.

So if a player wants to leave he should then also be allowed to leave for free after an agreed notice period and play for another club. I mean, if Pogba/Rashford want to leave in the summer the club shouldn't be able to hold them here against there wish until someone pays them a transfer fee. That sounds like another level of bullshit.

In some levels of non league, players can do just that, a 2 weeks notice period.

The player versus "Normal" people employment law is more like your higher level execs, who might have a year notice etc.

 

[Skills]

In some levels of non league, players can do just that, a 2 weeks notice period.

The player versus "Normal" people employment law is more like your higher level execs, who might have a year notice etc.

Okay even in the case of a year notice. A club can give in his notice to walk out of the club for free the following summer, and join whoever he wants. Is that fair enough?