Jump to content

English Premier League 2019-20


Recommended Posts

Surprised to see it's not mentioned, but pretty much every EPL side is laying off non-playing staff rather than force their players to take pay cuts.
Bournemouth have stopped paying digs for youth players who were forced to relocate to sign for them, while Tottenham havent cut any players wage, but are instead using the Government furlough scheme to pay the wages of all non-playing staff.
Yeah it's been discussed on the main corona thread.

It's morally corrupt - and also such a huge embarrassment in terms of pr.

Absolutely shocking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Said it in the other thread, but to watch these clubs sponging off the government and furloughing staff earning very ordinary wages whilst still dishing out the big bucks to their players is absolutely appalling. If you can't pay your ground staff without the government's support, you certainly should not be paying your players as normal. Shame the Government can't tell them to f**k off, really. 

Spurs have come across as particularly scummy here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Forest_Fifer said:

You could take 10% off the first team squads wages (which they wouldn't even notice) and have enough to pay every other person at the clubs.

Or the already rich owners could just pay it themselves rather than trying to put the blame on to their fellow employees. I'm glad the PFA in England are taking a stance against this sort of nonsense - I can guarantee that if Premier League players took pay cuts then the majority of that would end up in the back pockets of their owners. Harry Maguire has the right idea in instead asking players to donate 30% of their salary to help hospitals etc - that 30% will actually do some social good there rather than sitting gaining interest in the bank accounts of leeches like the Glazers and whoever else has shares in Man Utd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners could also have just paid their other employees rather than washing their hands of them and getting the government to pick up the tab. To do that and continue paying the players is outrageous. The players should've been the first to take the cut if the club apparently cannot afford to pay its staff, which is the message the club is sending out. 

The real issue here is of course the owners partaking in unneeded corporate welfare by abusing a government scheme set up for companies that are or will become distressed as a result of the Coronavirus. You can't pay your players in full and then plead poverty to the government for everyone else. It is abuse, pure and simple. 

The clubs clearly do not have an unlimited budget to keep this up and so in future may no longer been able to keep doing this, but they have really exposed themselves for what they are. 

Edited by Michael W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that football clubs, owned by billionaires, are getting stick for furloughing lower paid employees, while other organisations, owned by billionaires, aren't... for doing exactly the same thing?

Edited by Bully Wee Villa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that football clubs, owned by billionaires, are getting stick for furloughing lower paid employees, while other organisations, owned by billionaires, aren't... for doing exactly the same thing?
Because most organisations owned by billionaires are putting everyone on furlough and having their directors and highest paid workers taking voluntary pay cuts but football clubs are continuing to pay their players hundreds of thousands per week. And in the case of Spurs, Levy is the highest paid chairman in the Premier League (and the second highest of all time behind the horrible Oysten when Blackpool were in the Premiership) including a £3 million bonus for stadium delivery (it was late and there is still no naming rights partner).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is your link that most companies are putting "everyone" on furlough?

I'm more than happy to join in with any criticism of exploitative capitalism. I just don't see football as being any worse than the vast majority of capitalist evil-doers.

In any case, do people think football clubs are, uniquely, not suffering any loss of income, despite not being able to play any matches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afaik the furloigh scheme covers wages up to 80%, capped at £2500 a month. Now its fair enough that the outgoings of high earners are going to be higher (but really they should have enough cash and/or income insurance to meet their obligations comfortably) but i think if clubs were using the scheme for all employees then topping up the rest over and above the 2.5k for higher earners from cash reserves there'd be less outrage. I think maybe clubs are still wanting players to keep fully match fit and strictly monitor them in case football (miraculously) restarts faster than anticipated even if behind closed doors, which they cant do if they're formally furloughed??

Would actually mean more govt funding going to clubs if ive got it right, but selectively picking and choosing who they pay through the scheme while leaving top earners completely untouched doesnt look great.

Id guess theres a lot of behind the scenes talks with player agents going on about temporary pay cuts...

Edited by Thistle_do_nicely
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that football clubs, owned by billionaires, are getting stick for furloughing lower paid employees, while other organisations, owned by billionaires, aren't... for doing exactly the same thing?

They should as well, and I'm sure they are, just not on this thread.

 

I know Branson and virgin were getting grief, and that pressure should be continued.

 

But I'm slightly concerned that your first response to this was one of whataboutery.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is your link that most companies are putting "everyone" on furlough?
I'm more than happy to join in with any criticism of exploitative capitalism. I just don't see football as being any worse than the vast majority of capitalist evil-doers.
In any case, do people think football clubs are, uniquely, not suffering any loss of income, despite not being able to play any matches?
No evidence other than anecdotal I'm afraid. I know my wife's work is keeping on key workers (as they do work for hospitals and care homes), but those who don't and can't work from home are being furloughed as are the directors who usually travel round the various sites they have etc, and I've heard similar from friends and family in other large firms. Also, I've heard of plenty of directors and CEOs taking wage cuts or deferrals, across various different companies. I don't have an issue with football clubs furloughing staff per say and Bournemouth have done it but Eddie Howe and a few other directors etc. have taken a voluntary wage cut which at least makes it clear that the whole club are in together to some degree. Spurs is another kettle of fish entirely with Levy keeping his full salary (the details of which were published the same day they announced they'd be sending staff home) - topping up the workers with a 20% contribution from him and the top earning players taking even a 2% pay cut would have went down a lot better, don't you agree?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/04/2020 at 13:07, Bully Wee Villa said:

How is it that football clubs, owned by billionaires, are getting stick for furloughing lower paid employees, while other organisations, owned by billionaires, aren't... for doing exactly the same thing?

 

Probably because most clubs claim to be a 'People's club', 'For the people', and be the 'Heart of community' and all that kind of nonsense. Liverpool more than most. So when they continue to pay van Dijk £200k a week but then go with the begging bowl to the government/tax player to pay Billy the groundsman people are rightly going to object to it.

The criticism of individual footballers I think has been unfair, but criticism of Liverpool and Spurs is absolutely justified.

Edited by Diamonds are Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moomintroll


Even the Staunchest trade unionist will have to concede that the PFA are being a bit cheeky here.





NB I use “staunch” in the more normal real world sense
The only positive here is that Taylor is fucked, most players have realised this is not good PR & a lot of them genuinely want to help to contribute. He won't give a single f**k as he has gouged his undeserved money for years & like Levy will try to claim credit afterwards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 


Even the Staunchest trade unionist will have to concede that the PFA are being a bit cheeky here.





NB I use “staunch” in the more normal real world sense

 

Well yeah, if you are keen for whatever reason not to say they have made a rip roaring c**t of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...