NCFC to furlough staff

[Barbe bleu 814]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Before asking players to take pay cuts we should perhaps bear in mind that the PAYE from those 5 clubs' players is in excess of £500,000,000. That's an awful lot of nurses. 

If the money was diverted away from players and into the pockets of non-playing staff (or elsewhere) the tax take would still be £500,000,000 as the non playing staff still pay income tax and NI and they will pay duties and VAT on purchases etc. 

Sure international luxury brands might take a hit but is that really a big problem if it means a family or ten are not worrying day to day about how they pay their bills?

Edited April 4, 2020 by Barbe bleu

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Sad to say it, but in my experience the winner in the end tends to be money 

Players would go and other clubs would pick them up and pay them extra because no transfer fees were involved. The club, would be liable to the outgoings that their purchase involved but have no rights over their registration. 

Which is why I have become more attracted to Rugby. Football is still my number one and I guess if I actually went to Carrow Road every other week I may feel different.

But Rugby has always had a bit more camaraderie than Football and the social side of it is so much better. And the decision making is better. Saracens broke the rules. Even though you are one of the two best teams in the country, you cheated to do it. You are relegated. Will ManC be relegated? Not on your nelly.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Sad to say it, but in my experience the winner in the end tends to be money 

Players would go and other clubs would pick them up and pay them extra because no transfer fees were involved. The club, would be liable to the outgoings that their purchase involved but have no rights over their registration. 

Which is why I have become more attracted to Rugby. Football is still my number one and I guess if I actually went to Carrow Road every other week I may feel different.

But Rugby has always had a bit more camaraderie than Football and the social side of it is so much better. And the decision making is better. Saracens broke the rules. Even though you are one of the two best teams in the country, you cheated to do it. You are relegated. Will ManC be relegated? Not on your nelly.

Saracens pretty much openly flouted the rules for five seasons - EVENTUALLY they were called up on it and relegated. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,777]

6 hours ago, JF said:

I’m thinking possibly Mark Noble as he uses the line  he’ll be blowing bubbles when he comes back to play but could be looking too much into that. Clearly English so could be Vardy or Milner. Would love to know who it is though. Sounds a top bloke

I considered Noble as one of the three frontrunners, but I'm not sure if he's earning less now than he used to. The other two I thought it could be are Joe Hart and Ben Foster, but the player said 'children' and I think Hart only has one. 

I'd rule out Vardy because there's no way he was on more in the past than he is now, and I doubt he has played long enough at the top level to justify giving away an entire £50k a week wage for three years. Milner could be a good shout, but I just can't imagine him dropping the C-bomb so often! He's probably on more than £50k too.

I'd go with Noble.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

Liverpool FC......European champions and one of the richest clubs in the world, now furloughing non playing staff. How's that for the morally outraged on this thread?

[king canary 7,578]

25 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Liverpool FC......European champions and one of the richest clubs in the world, now furloughing non playing staff. How's that for the morally outraged on this thread?

Pretty ****ty.

[sonyc 5,491]

42 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Liverpool FC......European champions and one of the richest clubs in the world, now furloughing non playing staff. How's that for the morally outraged on this thread?

It's just business and many others will follow.

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

It’s nothing they aren’t entitled to do, along with other much more wealthy businesses.  I do wish people could get out of this ‘it’s not moral’ mindset; there’s a lot more (and worse) immoral to be vexed by (use of sweat shops, tax avoidance, tax havens etc) than a company using a government scheme for the precise purpose it was set up.

[kirku 1,332]

6 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Before asking players to take pay cuts we should perhaps bear in mind that the PAYE from those 5 clubs' players is in excess of £500,000,000. That's an awful lot of nurses. 

But we know so many players have good lawyers and accountants and some like Rooney pay less than someone on minimum wage.

Are you able to substantiate this claim at all?

Players wages are paid via PAYE and so will be subject to the tax bracket and NIC as any other employee on that salary. I'm aware of some historic avoidance (evasion?) around image rights.

[dylanisabaddog 4,867]

5 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

If the money was diverted away from players and into the pockets of non-playing staff (or elsewhere) the tax take would still be £500,000,000 as the non playing staff still pay income tax and NI and they will pay duties and VAT on purchases etc. 

Sure international luxury brands might take a hit but is that really a big problem if it means a family or ten are not worrying day to day about how they pay their bills?

Err, are you suggesting we should pay the people in the ticket office £20k a week? I'm a bit baffled. If the club stops paying the players it keeps the money. The non playing staff are being paid by the government. I think you need to accept that Norwich City is a business. There is no good reason to treat it any differently to any other business. 

Perhaps you mean that the players should give the money away. That's fine as long as all the other big earners do the same. They won't though

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

37 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Err, are you suggesting we should pay the people in the ticket office £20k a week? I'm a bit baffled. If the club stops paying the players it keeps the money. The non playing staff are being paid by the government. I think you need to accept that Norwich City is a business. There is no good reason to treat it any differently to any other business. 

Perhaps you mean that the players should give the money away. That's fine as long as all the other big earners do the same. They won't though

Amazing that the owners run a great community club one minute (so glad we are not Man City etc the usual type of quote) but now we are a business. Our owners are hypocrites but I knew that after reading the Times article. See the mouth piece Webber is spouting off again. Tell you what Stuart lad, when you have taken a 50% plus pay cut yet still have the club you support demanding the season ticket monthly payment or inviting me to buy an away ticket you can have a go until then shut up and do your job... one you have failed miserably at this season at by the way...

[Barbe bleu 814]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Err, are you suggesting we should pay the people in the ticket office £20k a week? I'm a bit baffled. If the club stops paying the players it keeps the money. The non playing staff are being paid by the government. I think you need to accept that Norwich City is a business. There is no good reason to treat it any differently to any other business. 

Perhaps you mean that the players should give the money away. That's fine as long as all the other big earners do the same. They won't 

The point was made that footballers pay a lot of tax and, implicitly, that the lesser paid amongst us should all be grateful. I was making the counter-point that is the wealth was more evenly spread out the total tax take would be much the same and it might be better spent.

 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Amazing that the owners run a great community club one minute (so glad we are not Man City etc the usual type of quote) but now we are a business. Our owners are hypocrites but I knew that after reading the Times article. See the mouth piece Webber is spouting off again. Tell you what Stuart lad, when you have taken a 50% plus pay cut yet still have the club you support demanding the season ticket monthly payment or inviting me to buy an away ticket you can have a go until then shut up and do your job... one you have failed miserably at this season at by the way...

You seem to be failing to understand that football clubs are trying to be many things. They are nothing without the finances from supporters, advertisers and tv companies and need to provide ‘something’ for each; for supporters they need to provide entertainment and ideally to be competitive in their league, there is also give-and-take with supporter groups and their local wider community (I think this is as good as a requirement nowadays); they also need to be competitive in transfer markets, and therefore MUST also be a business: people would (and do) bleat when they think money’s been wasted (in their opinion).  It’s all a balancing act, one we do better than many.

Clubs also pay tax, NI and Pension for employees.. We all know the NCFC model is self-financing, and we didn’t/couldn’t pee a tonne of money on transfers in the summer (or January) window; that suggests if nothing else does that we are trying to run a tight ship - it follows that the Retention scheme, that we are entitled to use, should be used.  

I’m not actually that big a fan of Webber but if you actually read what he said (or, better still watch/listen -it gives more context), you ought to get a better understanding of some things, but clearly you didn’t.

[sonyc 5,491]

..."but now we are a business"..

If the club wasn't a business then we would have no club to support

[Barbe bleu 814]

17 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

 if nothing else does that we are trying to run a tight ship - it follows that the Retention scheme, that we are entitled to use, should be used.  

I’m not actually that big a fan of Webber but if you actually read what he said (or, better still watch/listen -it gives more context), you ought to get a better understanding of some things, but clearly you didn’t.

As a last resort I would agree that the scheme should be used.  But this scheme takes money away from the NHS. I would feel more comfortable if we went on to it only after all other options were explored.  I very much doubt they were. 

As to what webber said, he said very little.  Its unfair to criticise players, the club cannot spend what it doesnt have and we'll discuss this appears to be the summary.  I'd have preferred- all the execs have talen a pay cut. We've discussed this with the players and if we can avoid the scheme and keep the business afloat we absolutely will. 

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

It’s (currently) only a 3 month scheme - there’s little point in doing it unless you do it early.

And to suggest we are somehow taking money ‘from’ the NHS is a slightly odd claim.

Edited April 4, 2020 by Branston Pickle

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

https://www.football365.com/news/feature-premier-league-player-wage-cut-matt-hancock?fbclid=IwAR2KT8XKhFxDTGYvCN9T9pZymRnpIIMtXx5oaNzAe2fGJbe9Wa-piOv1KU0

[Barbe bleu 814]

2 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

It’s (currently) only a 3 month scheme - there’s little point in doing it unless you do it early.

And to suggest we are somehow taking money ‘from’ the NHS is a slightly odd claim.

Why is it an odd claim?

The taxpayer will be paying 80% of the wages.   The same money could instead go on other public services, including the NHS.  

Ok, I perhaps should have said the NHS and other public services like I have before but the point is the same.

 

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

I do hope you are complaining in the same way to every single company that is using the scheme, because by this logic they are all taking money from the NHS...what utter bastards!

[dylanisabaddog 4,867]

10 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

The point was made that footballers pay a lot of tax and, implicitly, that the lesser paid amongst us should all be grateful. I was making the counter-point that is the wealth was more evenly spread out the total tax take would be much the same and it might be better spent.

 

 

It's not a question of being grateful, it's a matter of fact. Footballers earn a lot of money and as a result they pay a lot of tax at higher rates. Spreading the money out as you suggest is called communism and it's been tried and found not to work. 

If you dislike the fact that footballers are paid so much don't contribute with Sky Sports or ticket purchases. Personally, I'm quite happy they get paid what they do. Football is one of the few industries where the people who actually create the income get paid accordingly. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If you dislike the fact that footballers are paid so much don't contribute with Sky Sports or ticket purchases. Personally, I'm quite happy they get paid what they do. Football is one of the few industries where the people who actually create the income get paid accordingly. 

Strange thing to say. We attract footballers to our club because we have an income and they want to get their mitts on it. The defence of footballers is doing my head in. We now have Rubic Rooney bleating on about it. The same man who, not illegally I must add, contrived to pay little if any tax on his earnings at ManUre. He didn't want to the help the NHS then did he? He has more faces than the Town Hall clock.

And to quote other companies is meaningless. Many of those still have an income at the moment, Some have an income that has increased. But in the long run, that will be allowed because many of you have just voted in a Government that complains of loopholes but does nothing about it. My distaste grows daily.

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

"We all know the NCFC model is self-financing" .....factual incorrect or we would not be asking the tax payer to help. 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

20 hours ago, sonyc said:

..."but now we are a business"..

If the club wasn't a business then we would have no club to support

We have always been a business and that is why many argue for owners with greater ability to invest. Glad some are having their eyes opened in this crisis. I see Liverpool are getting lots of heat for doing what our owners have but our owners not getting the same criticism. Why is that?

[sonyc 5,491]

For me Kenny, the lack of criticism is because I think they are acting as they should (to protect the business and because it's legal to do so). That doesn't mean I like it morally. Yet, do I want to take action about it to criticise the club? It's not straightforward as an issue. 

I guess many have been through redundancies in our lives. It is often sad, unfair, unreasonable etc but this is often done to protect the business or make it more resilient to collapse. It happens all of the time.

The tax system is often not as progressive as it should be. Public services are not valued like they should be. We might list a whole range of things that are unfair in society, especially in business life, and this list could go on and on.

To select this one issue is not a hill I would wish to die on, there are far bigger inequalities in life.

I would hope footballers decide to give, be altruistic. Equally, I would hope multi millionaires might 're-invest' a proportion of their salaries to good causes.

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

17 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

I do hope you are complaining in the same way to every single company that is using the scheme, because by this logic they are all taking money from the NHS...what utter bastards!

Yeah but their probably not paying Premier League salaries to people who don't need the money. 

I get the point of the scheme and that high earners will continue to pay tax but it feels to me that it's been used to underwrite those wages. It's bad enough NCFC doing it but for Spurs and Liverpool it's pretty bloody scandalous.

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Yeah but their probably not paying Premier League salaries to people who don't need the money. 

I get the point of the scheme and that high earners will continue to pay tax but it feels to me that it's been used to underwrite those wages. It's bad enough NCFC doing it but for Spurs and Liverpool it's pretty bloody scandalous.

 

Clubs could easy make players take a 50% pay cut (I have and I do not earn £100k a week) and still pay all the wages of non playing staff WITHOUT the tax payer being forced to intervene. It's morally indefensible to me... Same as Wetherspoons and JD Sports etc. 

You will be pleased to hear that I am going to shut up about this now 😁

[Surfer 1,547]

When the clubs show real loss of revenue is the time to whine about the players not offering to give up their salary. Until then, focus on the club owners. We know about the financial resources of ours, but the owners at Liverpool, Arsenal, Man City, Spurs, Everton etc etc etc are in a different financial league... let them take the heat. 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

On 05/04/2020 at 17:29, Kenny Foggo said:

"We all know the NCFC model is self-financing" .....factual incorrect or we would not be asking the tax payer to help. 

 

The model is one of self-financing, and if it hadn't been for this unprecedented event (it seem that not even the Spanish flu of 1918/19 stopped football in England) probably would have worked as intended this season. But the club have already missed income from two home games and are bound to miss the income from two more before there is any chance of a resumption. And, unlike almost all the other EPL clubs, we do not have multi-millionaire or billionaire owners to bail us out in an emergency. Hence the self-financing model in the first place. Nor can the owners take a pay cut, since  they don't take a salary.

[JF 694]

Liverpool have now reversed their decision to use the scheme after the criticism they have received 

[Aggy 752]

On 04/04/2020 at 11:35, Barbe bleu said:

If the money was diverted away from players and into the pockets of non-playing staff (or elsewhere) the tax take would still be £500,000,000 as the non playing staff still pay income tax and NI and they will pay duties and VAT on purchases etc. 

I’m not sure that’s right. Firstly it doesn’t take into account tax bands.

Secondly, if the non-playing staff aren’t furloughed, then they would otherwise be entitled to full salary anyway. You’re using the money “saved” from playing staff salaries to pay the normal wages of non-playing staff. So the non-playing staff are getting paid the same amount (and therefore paying the same amount of tax) as always, but the playing staff are being paid less (and therefore paying less tax). You’re not using the money saved from the player’s salaries to give the no -playing staff some sort of bonus or pay rise.

As the club’s outgoings aren’t only wages, it’s unlikely that all money saved from playing staff pay cuts would go to salaries of non-playing staff anyway.