Plea to the board... don't use taxpayers money to furlough staff like Liverpool

Amarsdd

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
1,311
I think all the clubs should Furlough their players. Let the government pay them £2500 a month with no top up
What?
 

gerdm07

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
1,512
Man Utd is publicly listed and needs to do whatever is best for its shareholders.
This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.
 

MiceOnMeth

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 26, 2014
Messages
753
Wouldnt the weekly wage of someone like Lingard be enough to pay all non paying Staff for like 3 months?
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
404
This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.
I have a problem with this attitude. The way to cut expenses, if they have to (which neither LFC or Utd do), is voluntary cuts in player wages. It is all of the clubs’ responsibility to campaign for player wage cuts, publicly and very vocally. As has been said, a small percentage cut in player wages will easily pay non-playing staff wages.

Put another way: If clubs furlough staff and then spend money in the transfer market, tax payers are effectively buying these new players.
 

Eckers99

Michael Corleone says hello
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
4,572
This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.
The future of clubs like Liverpool and United are secure - they certainly have enough to keep paying their stars obscene wages. Besides, a club's image is an important part of the brand. Liverpool's took a hammering today, and rightly so.
 

Green_Red

Full Member
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
7,826
Didnt Liverpool just post record profits? Scouse cnuts la
 

Zen86

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,750
Location
That's the joke.
This. The club is a business and a business is smart to cut expenses in a time like this. Otherwise, you could be jeopardizing the survival of the business. I don't have a problem with Liverpool furloughing staff.
I bet you think you’re being really clever by taking this stance. It’s a c**t move, nothing more nothing less.
 

Scarecrow

Having a week off
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
11,761
Lots of clubs doing it it. The players are really not happy about this apparently.
 

NinjaZombie

Punched the air when Liverpool beat City
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
7,797
Location
Leather jacket popped like Cantona
Speaking of money and players making pay cuts, how have there not been a clamouring for the executives at the clubs, their board members etc etc to make financial sacrifices the players are being asked to make?
 

Cloud7

Full Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
5,861
Fecking disgusting. Big businessmen like this are literally everything that is wrong with the world.
 

gerdm07

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
1,512
The future of clubs like Liverpool and United are secure - they certainly have enough to keep paying their stars obscene wages. Besides, a club's image is an important part of the brand. Liverpool's took a hammering today, and rightly so.
You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.

GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.

ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.



GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?

Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
 

Eckers99

Michael Corleone says hello
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
4,572
You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.

GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.

ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.



GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?

Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
For a start, have any of Liverpool's owners or management accepted reduced terms or donated their own money to alleviate the damage? Plus, a company the size of GE has a drastically bigger workforce than Liverpool does. And, aside from gate receipts, Liverpool still get huge income from commercial deals, so it's not as if their income has completely dried up is it? Grounded flights earn nothing, Liverpool, without playing, still do.

And I'll say it again, if they can afford to pay their stars, they can afford to pay the staff who earn minimum wage.

Finally, United's financial responsibility rests with their own workforce. Morally it would be great if they could help struggling local businesses but, for now, not following the lead of a small number of greedy, shameful other clubs would be enough for most fans.
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
53,124
I cannot believe the news that Liverpool are following Spurs and Newcastle in furloughing non-playing staff to cover their wages in this horrendous time for our country and the globe.

What this means is that Liverpool, Spurs and Newcastle are going cap in hand to the government to dip into the taxpayer-funded fund, set aside to support companies in trouble, not some of the richest football clubs in the world.

It is an outrage that any Premier League club with such high revenues, AND profit, who are willing to spend stupid sums to their players and to buy them, would ever seek a handout from taxpayers to pay their staff.

And that is why United, if we have an ounce of ethics and kudos about us, should not go down this road. This is bail out money, not a cashpot for profiteers.

I would expect this from the likes of Mike Ashley, but please, Woodward, if you do nothing else positive in your time at the club, do not look at these clubs and think we should do the same.

And my hope is that we come out and say... that this not just wrong... but abhorrent.
taxpayer's money is a Scouser's birth right. Would you strip the crown away from the queen? No. Same with welfare benefits for Scousers.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
404
You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.

GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.

ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.



GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?

Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
What a load of crap.
 

OrcaFat

Full Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
404
For a start, have any of Liverpool's owners or management accepted reduced terms or donated their own money to alleviate the damage? Plus, a company the size of GE has a drastically bigger workforce than Liverpool does. And, aside from gate receipts, Liverpool still get huge income from commercial deals, so it's not as if their income has completely dried up is it? Grounded flights earn nothing, Liverpool, without playing, still do.

And I'll say it again, if they can afford to pay their stars, they can afford to pay the staff who earn minimum wage.

Finally, United's financial responsibility rests with their own workforce. Morally it would be great if they could help struggling local businesses but, for now, not following the lead of a small number of greedy, shameful other clubs would be enough for most fans.
Yes that’s a good post.
 

C'est Moi Cantona

Full Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
6,702
How many members of staff are we looking at here for clubs like Spurs and Liverpool seeing this as worthwhile exercise?

If it's 500 or so then they are basically saying they can't afford £250,000 per week, so potentially £3 million is over the three months this has been system has been setup for, which is alot of money, but an utter PR disaster whichever way you look at it.

If the club won't pay it then all the top players/manger would have to do is take a 10 % hit max to cover this, or the club could just slightly reduce their transfer budget for a summer window that either won't happen, or will likely be greatly affected by this, so the players costs will be greatly reduced. Or of course they could just cover it from the profits they make. Whichever way, unless all clubs do this, then they'll be a stigma attached for the ones that have that will likely cost alot more than any saving long term.

For the flak, and bad feeling they will get for doing this I just don't see it as worthwhile at all, and I hope United steer well clear.
 
Last edited:

HJ12

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
621
You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.

GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.

ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.



GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?

Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
You can't be serious. Any strong company with a solid balance sheet shouldn't be looking at maximising profits right now. They should be happy to carry their own employees costs for as long as they can, and leave the business rescue cash for companies that actually need it. It's very narrow-minded for clubs/companies to try and justify this. Ultimately a company's product/service relies on a healthy consumer base that will purchase from them - they are in fact directly screwing over their own potential customers by taking away the cash needed to save their businesses/jobs....all so that a multi-million pound organisation can save a few bucks in the short-term.
 

MalcolmTucker

Full Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2014
Messages
1,183
You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.

GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.

ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.



GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?

Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
Your post is an idiot
 

Feed Me

I'm hungry
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
27,512
Location
Midlands, UK
You make a good point about the brand. However, every business has revenues and expenses and sometimes tough choices have to be made.

GE announced that it will be reducing approximately 10% of its aviation unit's workforce, amounting to about 2,500 employees, on March 23. It also announced a three month furlough impacting 50% of its maintenance and repair employees. GE CEO Larry Culp will forgo his salary for the rest of the year, while GE Aviation CEO David Joyce will give up half of his salary.

ZipRecruiter laid off 443 employees and furloughed dozens more on March 27, days after CEO Ian Siegel said the billion-dollar online job-hub company was safe.



GE is worth probably a 1000 times more than United and Liverpool. Is the CEO a terrible guy? How is this any different?

Also, where do you draw the line? Should United be compensating all of the vendor businesses that sell food and stuff in the stadium? Should United compensate all the pubs around the stadium because of lost revenue?
Total false equivalence.
 

dove

Full Member
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
5,285
I disagree. Sport clubs pay a lot of taxes and they have the right to use the government's offered help, just like any other company in the country. There will be plenty of multi million (billion) companies applying for it and there is nothing wrong with that if you are being really affected by the current situation and sport clubs certainly are. Many of them will struggle to pay the wages and just because a few clubs will be okay, doesn't mean they should leave that money. They help their local communities by doing other things.
 

gerdm07

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
1,512
Your post is an idiot
I think you mean "idiotic."

Business owners and managers have to look at the big picture and look at what might happen in 2 months, 6 months and 2 years. Let's consider these two scenarios for a big club.

Scenario number 1. The club recognizes there will be a substantial decrease in revenues and acts quickly and boldly by furloughing workers and negotiate pay cuts with players to cut expenses. The summer transfer window opens and the club has the funds to buy 4 or 5 quality players at very good prices because it's a buyers market. Next February the club is having a great season with a much stronger squad and the fans and city are ecstatic. (watch "Sunderland til' I die" on Netflix to understand how important this can be, good show)

Scenario number 2. The club does not furlough any employees, honors it's contracts with its players and uses it's cash reserves and borrows money in order to get through this difficult period. The transfer window opens and, because of it's cash flow problems, has to sell a good player or two and can only buy young, inexpensive players for the future. Next February the club is in a worse position than it was last season.

Granted, maybe there is a middle ground. Anyway, if United do not cut expenses now, you should not complain when you are disappointed we don't buy some quality players. I know you will though.
 

Dr. StrangeHate

Full Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Messages
2,065
I think you mean "idiotic."

Business owners and managers have to look at the big picture and look at what might happen in 2 months, 6 months and 2 years. Let's consider these two scenarios for a big club.

Scenario number 1. The club recognizes there will be a substantial decrease in revenues and acts quickly and boldly by furloughing workers and negotiate pay cuts with players to cut expenses. The summer transfer window opens and the club has the funds to buy 4 or 5 quality players at very good prices because it's a buyers market. Next February the club is having a great season with a much stronger squad and the fans and city are ecstatic. (watch "Sunderland til' I die" on Netflix to understand how important this can be, good show)

Scenario number 2. The club does not furlough any employees, honors it's contracts with its players and uses it's cash reserves and borrows money in order to get through this difficult period. The transfer window opens and, because of it's cash flow problems, has to sell a good player or two and can only buy young, inexpensive players for the future. Next February the club is in a worse position than it was last season.

Granted, maybe there is a middle ground. Anyway, if United do not cut expenses now, you should not complain when you are disappointed we don't buy some quality players. I know you will though.
Scenario 1 is what Liverpool are going for. A transfer ban should be placed for any clubs taking advantage of this. That would be fair for all clubs involved.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
2,497
Can someone explain to me why it makes a difference to you that companies lay off workers that can not actually work during this pandemic so they can be paid by the state, versus being paid by yourseason ticket money. Either way, they are being paid out of your pocket.

Im seeing a lot of hate towards Liverpool and Tottenham for taking these actions, but the argumen that tax payer money should not be used is a little bit comical.

Firstly, The British state is not going to go bankrupt. There is no shortage of public funds available to combat this epidemic. Secondly, you and all other fans are paying the bill regardless of what account it comes from.

Thirdly: Nearly ever club in the UK do NOT pay shareholder dividends. The saving does not go to "some billionaires pocket". It literally remains in the club. The only club that DO pay dividends is Manchester United, and we are paying all staff and players in full throughout the year.

Public opinion is so passionate and short sighted sometimes I wonder how many actually takes time to consider the sense of their argument.

For the record: ive always been on the side that wants the players to take paycuts to keep the backroom staff in employment. But i also very much underrstand the reason for laying off staff in a time like this. Feelings don't pay the bills.

Edit: There are a lot of people upset that players are not furloughed with staff, or have been the first ones to take a paycut. The simple reason to this is that the PFA adviced the players NOT to take paycuts. There are legal questions to weed out first, primarily if there are potential breaches of contract and if that allows the players to break his contract with the club. This HAS to be ironed out before the club can say "You take paycuts".
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
5,475
Location
Manchester
Can someone explain to me why it makes a difference to you that companies lay off workers that can not actually work during this pandemic so they can be paid by the state, versus being paid by yourseason ticket money. Either way, they are being paid out of your pocket.

Im seeing a lot of hate towards Liverpool and Tottenham for taking these actions, but the argumen that tax payer money should not be used is a little bit comical.

Firstly, The British state is not going to go bankrupt. There is no shortage of public funds available to combat this epidemic. Secondly, you and all other fans are paying the bill regardless of what account it comes from.

Thirdly: Nearly ever club in the UK do NOT pay shareholder dividends. The saving does not go to "some billionaires pocket". It literally remains in the club. The only club that DO pay dividends is Manchester United, and we are paying all staff and players in full throughout the year.

Public opinion is so passionate and short sighted sometimes I wonder how many actually takes time to consider the sense of their argument.

For the record: ive always been on the side that wants the players to take paycuts to keep the backroom staff in employment. But i also very much underrstand the reason for laying off staff in a time like this. Feelings don't pay the bills.
Clubs owned by billionaires are exploiting a scheme that was intended to help small businesses and are having the tax payers pay 80% of their non-playing staffs salaries. You don’t see a problem with that? Tax payers money being used to save these clubs a few quid, and you are cool with that? Wouldn’t you rather that money go somewhere else? Like to the homeless for example?
 

gerdm07

Full Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
1,512
Scenario 1 is what Liverpool are going for. A transfer ban should be placed for any clubs taking advantage of this. That would be fair for all clubs involved.
And who decides which clubs are taking advantage of this situation? Besides, that could make the problem worse for many clubs because prices for players will go down even further. Many clubs count on selling players to make ends meet.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
2,497
Clubs owned by billionaires are exploiting a scheme that was intended to help small businesses and are having the tax payers pay 80% of their non-playing staffs salaries. You don’t see a problem with that? Tax payers money being used to save these clubs a few quid, and you are cool with that? Wouldn’t you rather that money go somewhere else? Like to the homeless for example?
But the tax payers money ARE going to the staff salaries. That's my point. Regardless if they come from the club or not. Money distributed from the state or directly to the club, it doesnt make any actual difference.

People are viewing "tax payer money" as some scarce resource that is about to be depleted by greedy companies. "Tax payer money" is the sum total of all income from companies and people alike. All PL clubs already pay income tax to the tune of several million each year. Around £44.6% of the UK budget goes to Healthcare and Welfare annually. Around £173bn to Welfare and £144bn to Healthcare.

Tjhe government stimulus package to the employers is currently worth £7bn, or about 1 percent of the annual UK budget. Now, that is a LOT of money obviously, but Im just offering up some perspective here. I can think of many companies in the UK that should also be added to the shame list. It would be bad if this stimulus package took away something from welfare, or healthcare, or any other service, but fact of the matter it does not.

I'd spend a lot less time worrying about football clubs forloughing workers who are not currently doing anything to protect their interest, and worry a lot more about the wast number of companies that straight up abuse this fund by forloughing workers and keeping them in job anyway as a meant to cheat the system and have the state pay for their workers WHILE they are working. That is INFINITELY worse than football clubs following doing things by the book.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
25,618
But the tax payers money ARE going to the staff salaries. That's my point. Regardless if they come from the club or not. Money distributed from the state or directly to the club, it doesnt make any actual difference.
You've conflated tax payers with customers on a few occasions now. An individuals wealth does not equate to the money accumulated through taxation. It's ridiculous.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
2,497
You've conflated tax payers with customers on a few occasions now. An individuals wealth does not equate to the money accumulated through taxation. It's ridiculous.
Read my post again. I do no such thing.

An individuals wealth have no bearing on my post whatsoever. The money is already in the club.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
25,618
Read my post again. I do no such thing.

An individuals wealth have no bearing on my post whatsoever. The money is already in the club.
Of course you do.

And where do you think that money comes from? The club paying wages and the government paying it isn't coming from the same pot. Crazy.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
2,497
Of course you do.

And where do you think that money comes from? The club paying wages and the government paying it isn't coming from the same pot. Crazy.
You're not quite understanding my point so I'll just leave it at this.
 

Walrus

Oppressed White Male
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
10,276
I think all the clubs should Furlough their players. Let the government pay them £2500 a month with no top up
This sounds like the makings of a great reality TV show (if that isnt too much of an oxymoron).

Just a shame most of them will have millions saved up so that it wouldnt make the blindest bit of difference.

Still, imagine a bunch of PL footballers trying to live on a regular Joe's income for a few months... sounds like comedy gold.
 

red thru&thru

Full Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
5,241
If Manchester United didn't take the furlough and some how down the future got into financial trouble because of it, trust me, people would come out and donate money to them. People don't forget.

If Lfc later on stumble across difficult times, even after the furlough, they still would be bailed.

However, the two brands will be viewed very differently. Lfc have really shot themselves in the foot here.

Neil Ashton, probably, has justified his keep if he advised this move. I'm not exactly sure he would have had much weight but he would've been consulted. It will be very difficult to boo the Glazer's here on in and even the media will probably look favourably over us.