Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, scoop said:

That's a valid point.
Would the same not apply to at least some of the clubs other income streams too then (e.g. advertising)?
Similarly, would the players also not have other sources of income? So it's not like they'll be bereft of all income as it seems to be being suggested.

This point cuts both ways I guess. If the clubs profit from some of our players names then maybe the players are due part of that.

It's all getting too complicated, I'm going down the pub ... oh no ...

Indeed, it is all rather complicated Scoop.

But it all just looks so very wrong! Club temporarily gets rid of low earners to save some money yet 20 grand a week players keep rolling it in. EEEEEEK!

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

 

Let's be clear, this scheme is diverting money away from essential public services and into the pockets of the already ridiculously wealthy who will be required to do precisely nothing for the pay. 

 

It isn’t, though.  You appear to both be misunderstanding the scheme and how football clubs would use it.

the WHOLE POINT is that people aren’t working.  Indeed I believe  they can’t unless volunteering for the nhs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a time for responsible capitalism everywhere and not just in football. Leaders of businesses need to forgo bonuses for the time being, high earners should cap salaries. Even if it doesn't make that much difference in a financial sense we need to see a show of solidarity from those in the public eye, otherwise this could lead to instability and discontent throughout society and then we would be in big trouble. 

It needs sacrifice of from those who have it good when times are good. It's the right and moral thing to do when many are faced with hardship and economic meltdown. 

I'm really surprised at our club given the religious and socialist credentials of our owners that they haven't realised the importance of moral leadership at this time. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

It isn’t, though.  You appear to both be misunderstanding the scheme and how football clubs would use it.

the WHOLE POINT is that people aren’t working.  Indeed I believe  they can’t unless volunteering for the nhs 

Hundreds and thousands of us are working from home. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

Hundreds and thousands of us are working from home. 

Yup, but you/they/we haven’t been furloughed.  There’s a massive difference between wfh and having nothing you can do to wfh.  For a football club, someone in the ticket office can’t when all such stuff is suspended. Employers could easily just sack people as there’s no work for them, but the whole point of the scheme is so that they don’t.

It can of course create issues within a company - people furloughed and on full pay doing nothing while others continue to work hard, but that’s the way it is.  For many/most the idea of doing nothing for 3(?) months is horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

It is a time for responsible capitalism everywhere and not just in football. Leaders of businesses need to forgo bonuses for the time being, high earners should cap salaries. Even if it doesn't make that much difference in a financial sense we need to see a show of solidarity from those in the public eye, otherwise this could lead to instability and discontent throughout society and then we would be in big trouble. 

It needs sacrifice of from those who have it good when times are good. It's the right and moral thing to do when many are faced with hardship and economic meltdown. 

I'm really surprised at our club given the religious and socialist credentials of our owners that they haven't realised the importance of moral leadership at this time. 

Good post! I seem to have run out of reactions already (and its not even 12) as if not I'd of sent one your way. 👍

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

It isn’t, though.  You appear to both be misunderstanding the scheme and how football clubs would use it.

the WHOLE POINT is that people aren’t working.  Indeed I believe  they can’t unless volunteering for the nhs 

If the players and execs etc sacrificed a small percentage of their pay I am sure that the club could still pay the lower paid non playing staff their full salary and allow them to volunteer in lieu of their normal duties.

This way the taxpayer (and by extension the NHS and other vital services) are not paying these guys and instead currently  unproductive footballers are.

Yes, this would mean askong millionaires to take the hit. I guess it's a matter for their consciences if they do or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that it is ultimately up to the players themselves and not the club to get players to sacrifice their wages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HertsCanary93 said:

Seems to me that it is ultimately up to the players themselves and not the club to get players to sacrifice their wages. 

Yes.  The club can probably furlough the players but not demand them take a pay cut. It can though ask them to do so.

The problem is that Mr Webber seems not to have asked them to do so or have I got this wrong? 

I know that it would be difficult to ask those around you to take a cut but proper leadership does sometimes require you to do the difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Spain they have a law I believe called Erte which means Barcelona could demand their players take a cut by instituting a temporary contract to cover a specific reason. All previous contracts would come back into force once any crisis is over. Initially Messi was the only one who agreed with several totally against it. So it isn't just our players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is will players take a pay cut to help football clubs to survive?  I would say yes, most would - we all recognise the extraordinary circumstances and players are no different.  What they have are lucrative contracts based on playing football - and they are not able to play football - so it would not be too much imo to ask them to take a pay cut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The question is will players take a pay cut to help football clubs to survive?  I would say yes, most would - we all recognise the extraordinary circumstances and players are no different.  What they have are lucrative contracts based on playing football - and they are not able to play football - so it would not be too much imo to ask them to take a pay cut. 

Perhaps someone should ask them to then?

No doubt the execs are discussing how much of a cut they will take right now so that they can then go to the players and ask.

This way the future if the club is protected and we can ensure that tax payer money can go to where it is most needed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be interesting... is the percentage each player would have to sacrifice to pay the non-playing salaries for six months.

I.e - if each player sacrificed 5% of their salary, would that cover the rest of the non-playing staff. 

It could probably be calculated reasonably accurately/easily using the latest accounts. 

Something for me to do if I get furloughed. More out of interest than any strong opinions on whether players should or shouldn't take any action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HertsCanary93 said:

Seems to me that it is ultimately up to the players themselves and not the club to get players to sacrifice their wages. 

There is zero excuse for a premier league club to ask the tax payer to pay it's cleaners whilst lining the pockets of those not playing any games. It's not right. But I am not surprised that is what our owners are doing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wholly disagree - it would be a dereliction of duty if they didn’t access every avenue of finance open to them and this scheme is there to use.  They aren’t a charity - though of course charities are also busy furloughing their staff too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well I wholly disagree - it would be a dereliction of duty if they didn’t access every avenue of finance open to them and this scheme is there to use.  They aren’t a charity - though of course charities are also busy furloughing their staff too.

I believe the club is doing what it should do, taking the finance option offered by the government for such workers plus it is making up the 20% which also seems fair. No one person will be financially worse off. Some can work remotely and be safer as a result.

Now, I also understand the issue of players wages too and the moral dimension. Yet, I don't see these 2 sets of 'workers' as being inextricably linked.

However, I do think players however should set aside some of their salaries (and I don't mean mere deferral, though this is one route) across the EPL which should be distributed down and through the league ladder. What level this 'set aside' amount should be would be for debate.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well I wholly disagree - it would be a dereliction of duty if they didn’t access every avenue of finance open to them and this scheme is there to use.  They aren’t a charity - though of course charities are also busy furloughing their staff too.

Just because you can something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.  I

I am embarrassed that this is being done by Norwich City. 

And I doubt this will he forgotten by neighbours anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes,   the neighbours will remember that when we had access to premier league money and lucrative assets we still took money from the taxpayer at a time when there were more important things to fund than unproductive millionaires.

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Er, ok.

Stop being obtuse. Some on here have been crowing for a long time about our neighbours not paying their bills.  That's going to stop now though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It’s not even remotely the same thing.  They went into administration because they couldn’t pay bills to local businesses and charities, we are taking advantage of a govt scheme that we are entitled to utilise.

But I don’t really see why you care what they think of us; it’s irrelevant.

Btw, they are doing the same thing and furloughing their staff too, you know. As I’ve said all along, any business with any sense would do the same.
 

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Knight has written to Premier League chief executive Richard Masters calling for action on player wages, saying clubs which furlough non-playing staff but do not impose cuts on player wages should be subjected to a windfall tax if they do not change approach by Tuesday, 7 April.

"The purpose of the coronavirus job retention scheme is not to support the economics of Premier League clubs," Knight wrote.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52142267

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a Premier League footballer is earning 200k a week ...he's giving up 80k of that in taxes......where on earth do people think this pit of money to ensure the general public can keep food on the table and roofs over their heads is coming from?

....High earners ...such as footballers have and are paying into the system

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'm sure no high earners ever attempt to reduce the amount of tax they have to pay. With regard to the furlough scheme, it doesn't matter whether bigger businesses than City apply to it or not. That doesn't make it right for us to do it. Football clubs are perfectly capable of making decisions about their own social responsibility. City are getting it wrong. Following on from the pig's ear that was made of the memberships, as well as signing up with another betting company as shirt sponsor (just as the tide was turning against these deals), it looks like someone at Carrow Road isn't thinking. I have no interest what Ipswich Town think and Julian Knight and Matt Johnson are hardly in any position to lecture on rights and wrongs given the Tory government of the last few years but I do care how City act, not just how they play. Earlier, someone said City's furlough decision was embarrassing. That's about right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I also don't understand the moral outrage in all of this.

Norwich's financial issues over the last years are well documented and so are not remotely in the same financial situation as many of the other Premiership clubs, by far the largest source of income is TV money and, given there are no games being played, is there any certainty that those payments would continue at the budgeted level?

As others have stated, far larger and far more profitable businesses are using the Furlough scheme - in this environment it is incumbent on the management to use every possible angle to help the business survive precipitous drops in revenue. Morally, Norwich have done the right thing in topping up wages to 100% - not all businesses are doing that. From a business perspective, the players are simply assets - with a level of CapEx required. Not unlike other businesses - except that the assets are people rather than aeroplanes, factories, shops etc etc.

For those who think that the players should take a vast wage cut, defer or forego wages are likely missing the financial reality that a lot of these young people are operating under. They will also have financial commitments, it shouldn't come as a surprise that many people, footballers included, tend to scale their spending to their income. Yes, they're significantly better paid than a vast majority of people, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they have easy access to funds to cover their outgoings at the drop of a hat.

Their high wages also contribute a huge absolute sum in terms of PAYE and NIC. Very simplistically, a player on £20k a week equals about £1m a year - and takes home about £550k. This means that £450k is contributed to the state. This seems a realistic figure for Norwich players. A broad average of Premiership salaries seems to be around £3m a year. With 25 players in a squad and 20 teams in the league, we have 500 players. The contribution to public funds would be around £700m a year. The effective tax rate at that level of earnings is about 50%.

To put it in some perspective, David de Gea reportedly earns £18m a year for his new deal and, in terms of basic salary, is the highest paid player in the league. Denise Coates, CEO of Bet365, pocketed £323m last year. 

 

Edited by kirku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon Kirku!

5 hours ago, kirku said:

For those who think that the players should take a vast wage cut, defer or forego wages are likely missing the financial reality that a lot of these young people are operating under. They will also have financial commitments, it shouldn't come as a surprise that many people, footballers included, tend to scale their spending to their income. 

I'm sorry Kirku but I don't have much sympathy with our players when staff who earn in a year what the players earn in a week are being furloughed. The fact the club have taken that action says to me that the club are going to be seriously financial impacted by all this and are trying their best to mitigate that (which is fine). And yet the high earners (players/management/coaches) do nothing? Really? All in this together are we? Community club?

5 hours ago, kirku said:

Their high wages also contribute a huge absolute sum in terms of PAYE and NIC. Very simplistically, a player on £20k a week equals about £1m a year - and takes home about £550k. This means that £450k is contributed to the state. This seems a realistic figure for Norwich players. A broad average of Premiership salaries seems to be around £3m a year. With 25 players in a squad and 20 teams in the league, we have 500 players. The contribution to public funds would be around £700m a year. The effective tax rate at that level of earnings is about 50%.

Why does this need to change? They pay their taxes and get their (still) massive chunk back. They then give some of that chunk back to the club so we can stay financially solid. Standing orders are remarkably easy to set up.

5 hours ago, kirku said:

To put it in some perspective, David de Gea reportedly earns £18m a year for his new deal and, in terms of basic salary, is the highest paid player in the league. Denise Coates, CEO of Bet365, pocketed £323m last year. 

I don't care about Denise Coates; her actions (or lack of them) are for her conscience. She has nothing to do with me. Whatever she's doing, I doubt it's enough. But what I do care about is my club because I'm part of it. It's part of what makes me, me! This looks bad because it is. It reflects on every part of our club.

I have NO issue with them using the scheme AS LONG as everyone in the club is pulling in the same direction. At the moment, they aren't.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...