Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CanaryLegend

Players - Take A Pay Cut

Recommended Posts

Do the right thing - This isn’t right on any level. 
 

Furloughing the rest of the staff and getting the government to bail them out.

I’m embarrassed by the actions of Norwich and the silence on players not taking paying cuts like in Spain and Italy is deafening.

Premier League needs to have a hard long look at themselves.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, CanaryLegend said:

Premier League needs to have a hard long look at themselves.

 

That's half the problem,  too disconnected from reality by their wages and status. Selfies, Instagram and all that  ole shoite, that's why I find Argos a breath of fresh air, after all  a budget warehouse store is not exactly prem league instaworthy but hey  its better stocked than anywhere in Cuba. Reality check  for the lot of them please.

Edited by wcorkcanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not just the players.  The execs need to show leadership on this too. It's one thing not being able to look a player in the eye and ask for restraint but the man in the mirror should cause no such problem

Edited by Barbe bleu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect, as Gary Linekar stated today, that EPL players (or representatives) will shortly get a chance to agree as a group what kind of response they will make. They have not known in what way as a group to react/respond to all of this (a few weeks since games were suspended and just a week after lockdown). Some clubs abroad are showing the way. And I believe we can expect more to come out from them. They need to.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is that the message has become confused.  No one is suggesting players should be furloughed and they won’t be, but backroom staff absolutely qualify and the retention scheme should be used for them.  
Players are different, that has to come from themselves; they are well paid and whilst I’m sure they have outgoings commensurate with that level of pay, they can and should stump up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grant Holts Moustache said:

PFA and Premier League were meeting about this yesterday. Fifpro have recommended that players wait until the outcome of these talks. 

Let's not judge players just yet. 

Why not?

Are they only going to take a pay cut when they're told they have to.

Let's face it, as generous as the 70% pay cut in Spain is, it still means that a player on £100k a week is getting £30k a week.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The club have every right to furlough the non-essential staff just like any other business. I expect there will be a wider announcement regarding player cuts lead by a governing body, which will force each player to maybe reduce by a percentage across all premier league clubs... which will be activated by the payroll of each club. Asking individuals to do it is a bit ridiculous. There are all kinds of implications involved with changing somebodies earnings. I suspect a fair number of players have possibly already offered to take.a cut, but it needs to be a universal thing.

Edited by Michael Starr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Michael Starr said:

The club have every right to furlough the non-essential staff just like any other business.

Of course you could argue that players are non_essential staff at the moment as they're not actually doing anything

Where/what is the current difference between a player and a cleaner?

Share this post


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

Why not?

Are they only going to take a pay cut when they're told they have to.

Let's face it, as generous as the 70% pay cut in Spain is, it still means that a player on £100k a week is getting £30k a week.

 

 

Because you have literally no idea what they are doing behind the scenes. Put your pitchfork away until you have a clue what decisions they come to. Fifpro have recommended players do not agree individually because the talks are about a collective agreement across the league.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If there is a chance that the players will agree to take a pay cut to fund other staff why have we already furloughed?

 

 

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Grant Holts Moustache said:

Because you have literally no idea what they are doing behind the scenes. Put your pitchfork away until you have a clue what decisions they come to. Fifpro have recommended players do not agree individually because the talks are about a collective agreement across the league.

Exactly!

The fact MP even managed to make a dig about the 70% pay cut in Spain is unbelievable. I'd be interested to know how many people on this forum would be quick to offer 70% of their salary straight up regardless of how much you were making..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Making Plans said:

Of course you could argue that players are non_essential staff at the moment as they're not actually doing anything

Where/what is the current difference between a player and a cleaner?

They have different contracts of employment. when you buy a player, you are effectively buying the right to his services for  a period of time. If you do not pay him the contractually agreed amount, you will, I suspect be in breech of contract. Thus any player who wishes to "could leave on a free."

I suspect that the club is worried that it could lose all its most "in demand" players for nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Making Plans said:

Of course you could argue that players are non_essential staff at the moment as they're not actually doing anything

Where/what is the current difference between a player and a cleaner?

The difference between a player and a cleaner is that the player is still technically doing there job i.e they are are personalised training regimes etc. The furlough scheme is to protect people who can no longer do their jobs because of the lock-down from redundancy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its look like the lines are drawn. Those who cannot believe the club or players can do anything wrong seem to be out today. Wake up and see what is happening in the world and believe me there is more to come.

You cannot separate players from any other employee at the club. As much as you want to, they are all employed by the club and are bound by the same industrial laws. And because of this silly thought of contractual obligations at a time when no-one born since 1945 have known anything like it, clubs and players are hiding.

Players can take a mortgage holiday and all the other holidays that companies are offering. There is no excuse whatsoever for this disgraceful behaviour. Take a lead from other players you miserable lot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Well its look like the lines are drawn. Those who cannot believe the club or players can do anything wrong seem to be out today. Wake up and see what is happening in the world and believe me there is more to come.

You cannot separate players from any other employee at the club. As much as you want to, they are all employed by the club and are bound by the same industrial laws. And because of this silly thought of contractual obligations at a time when no-one born since 1945 have known anything like it, clubs and players are hiding.

Players can take a mortgage holiday and all the other holidays that companies are offering. There is no excuse whatsoever for this disgraceful behaviour. Take a lead from other players you miserable lot.

I understand the sentiment behind this, KG but I think that the situation for the club is a but more complex than you suggest. Ultimately, I believe that the players could leave on a free if we do not honour their contracts - I don't think that this would be in the long-term interests of the club.

Negotiating a voluntary agreement would be a better solution and in the interests of balance, the players have already contributed £200,000 to local charity.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11967250/coronavirus-norwich-make-200k-donation-to-help-those-most-affected

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Exactly!

The fact MP even managed to make a dig about the 70% pay cut in Spain is unbelievable. I'd be interested to know how many people on this forum would be quick to offer 70% of their salary straight up regardless of how much you were making..

I only saw Hancock’s comments yesterday which I thought were very unfair. “The best thing premier league players can do to help is take a pay cut.” Took the first opportunity to call out footballers but I can’t remember any similar comments about  directors or other high earning employees in other industries. 

2 hours ago, Making Plans said:

Of course you could argue that players are non_essential staff at the moment as they're not actually doing anything

Where/what is the current difference between a player and a cleaner?

As I understand it, you aren’t allowed to do any work at all for your employer whilst on furlough. If the players were training even on their own, is there an argument they are working for their employers? If they are generating income through sponsorship deals and other rights etc do they qualify for the furlough scheme? Not sure. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Making Plans said:

Why not?

Are they only going to take a pay cut when they're told they have to.

Let's face it, as generous as the 70% pay cut in Spain is, it still means that a player on £100k a week is getting £30k a week.

But as things stand the clubs still have TV and Sponsorship income, e.g. Sky haven't asked for a refund, so why on earth would players take 30 percent. 

I'd suggest 50 percent now, 30 percent deferred and spread throughout remainder of contract, but sacrificing 20 percent permanently in solidarity with the furloughed of the country would be a decent gesture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Badger said:

I understand the sentiment behind this, KG but I think that the situation for the club is a but more complex than you suggest. Ultimately, I believe that the players could leave on a free if we do not honour their contracts - I don't think that this would be in the long-term interests of the club.

Negotiating a voluntary agreement would be a better solution and in the interests of balance, the players have already contributed £200,000 to local charity.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11967250/coronavirus-norwich-make-200k-donation-to-help-those-most-affected

 

I think this is probably correct. My understanding is that, if people are put on furlough, you are effectively terminating their contract and then putting them on the furlough scheme so they can benefit from the government scheme. You can only put people on furlough if you were otherwise going to make them redundant.
 

I don’t think there’s any obligation on the employer to take the employee back into employment whenever the furlough scheme ends - which would lead me to believe there’s no obligation on the employee to go back either.

Edited by Aggy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As I understand it, you aren’t allowed to do any work at all for your employer whilst on furlough. If the players were training even on their own, is there an argument they are working for their employers? If they are generating income through sponsorship deals and other rights etc do they qualify for the furlough scheme? Not sure. 
 

What are we talking about here? Is there an argument the players can etc. Norfolk is flat but the moral high ground has missed Carrow Road.

The club was fortunate that we made the EPL this season financially. We lose money quite regularly and were told we sold Maddison or else.

And now we are still paying players very large sums of money each week, despite our lack of income. Never mind the furloughing on non players. We have no income and yet we are leaving to the players. Get a grip. If this was any other industry there would be an outcry if unions were demanding that their members were paid despite the company having no income.

Edited by keelansgrandad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Grant Holts Moustache said:

PFA and Premier League were meeting about this yesterday. Fifpro have recommended that players wait until the outcome of these talks. 

Let's not judge players just yet. 

Agreed and let's remember that decisions made my individual Premier League players could undermine negotitiations which impact players on much lower incomes in League 2, that's why an industry wide solution is necessary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

As I understand it, you aren’t allowed to do any work at all for your employer whilst on furlough. If the players were training even on their own, is there an argument they are working for their employers? If they are generating income through sponsorship deals and other rights etc do they qualify for the furlough scheme? Not sure. 
 

What are we talking about here? Is there an argument the players can etc. Norfolk is flat but the moral high ground has missed Carrow Road.

The club was fortunate that we made the EPL this season financially. We lose money quite regularly and were told we sold Maddison or else.

And now we are still paying players very large sums of money each week, despite our lack of income. Never mind the furloughing on non players. We have no income and yet we are leaving to the players. Get a grip. If this was any other industry there would be an outcry if unions were demanding that their members were paid despite the company having no income.

KG, many other industries have put admin staff on furlough but not ‘fee earners’. 
 

Edit: the reason being multiple, but one of which is that they don’t want to lose their best/most lucrative workers to competitors at a later date.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


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

As I understand it, you aren’t allowed to do any work at all for your employer whilst on furlough. If the players were training even on their own, is there an argument they are working for their employers? If they are generating income through sponsorship deals and other rights etc do they qualify for the furlough scheme? Not sure. 
 

What are we talking about here? Is there an argument the players can etc. Norfolk is flat but the moral high ground has missed Carrow Road.

The club was fortunate that we made the EPL this season financially. We lose money quite regularly and were told we sold Maddison or else.

And now we are still paying players very large sums of money each week, despite our lack of income. Never mind the furloughing on non players. We have no income and yet we are leaving to the players. Get a grip. If this was any other industry there would be an outcry if unions were demanding that their members were paid despite the company having no income.

I can see your point KG, but in effect if the club unilaterally enforces pay cuts on the players it runs the risk of voiding contracts that are potentially worth tens of millions of pounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case Badger, clubs now have the opportunity to get football back to a sensible level. Let the players threaten. Let SKY threaten. There are other players and other media.

In the circumstances, I cannot believe the courts will want to even accept any class action from players and agents. The public would turn on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

In that case Badger, clubs now have the opportunity to get football back to a sensible level. Let the players threaten. Let SKY threaten. There are other players and other media.

In the circumstances, I cannot believe the courts will want to even accept any class action from players and agents. The public would turn on them.

The players would not need to go to court. They would simply sign a contract with another club, because we had breached their contract. It might not be fair but that's how it is.

Whilst the moral situation is different, we have seen how players and clubs will react - for examples Rangers losing players (e.g. Naismith to Everton and Whittaker to us).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Badger said:

I understand the sentiment behind this, KG but I think that the situation for the club is a but more complex than you suggest. Ultimately, I believe that the players could leave on a free if we do not honour their contracts - I don't think that this would be in the long-term interests of the club.

Negotiating a voluntary agreement would be a better solution and in the interests of balance, the players have already contributed £200,000 to local charity.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11967250/coronavirus-norwich-make-200k-donation-to-help-those-most-affected

 

Legally the player have long term fixed employment contracts, worse case is that a court could force the club to pay the contract in full over a reasonable length of time. For them to leave on a free, a court would have to void the employment contract, while seems unlikely as the contract would be impaired rather than broken.

Whereas a cleaner would be on a four week notice period, so quicker and easier to get rid of.

I'm sure after Juventus, Barcelona and Leeds have agreed pay freezes or cuts it's just a matter of time before everyone else fails in line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know furlough is an alternative to redundancy so they will continue to have the same rights as before but will not be able to perform duties.

A furloughed player could not up and leave anymore than they now can.

However.... an employee has to consent to furlough. The only way an employer could force the hand is to threaten redundancy as an alternative.

I have no idea how easy it is to make a footballer redundant.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My annoyance with this is the speed at which we went to the taxpayer.  At a time when 16 other clubs in the richest league in the world are holding back from pressing the button we went right ahead. 

Not only that but if webber's statement is to be believed we didn't even ask the players if they will take a temporary hit.

And let's say it again...government money that could be spent on ventilators, PPE and any other amount of vital public services is instead being kept in players' and execs pockets.

In 1939 we sent young men to die for the greater good and now we cannot look them in the eye and ask for spare change?

Perhaps there are things we are not being told. If the more are in would suggest that the club needs to come out and say them.

Edited by Barbe bleu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

As far as I know furlough is an alternative to redundancy so they will continue to have the same rights as before but will not be able to perform duties.

A furloughed player could not up and leave anymore than they now can.

However.... an employee has to consent to furlough. The only way an employer could force the hand is to threaten redundancy as an alternative.

I have no idea how easy it is to make a footballer redundant.

 

 

 

I’m not sure that can be correct Bb. I know it’s an emergency measure so the legal implications won’t have been fully thought through from every angle, but there would be huge competition law and freedom of movement issues if you are right.

There is no obligation on the employer to take the employee back on at the end of the furlough period. But the employee can’t move jobs? You can force an employee to earn no more than 2,500 a month while not having to pay them yourselves?

I’m not even sure how you could argue the employee has an obligation to serve notice before they can leave. If you as the employer aren’t paying them, why should they need to serve notice?

If the employer doesn’t need to serve notice to terminate the furlough (and has no obligation to take you back on after the furlough period) why would the employee have to serve notice?

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Icecream Snow said:

Legally the player have long term fixed employment contracts, worse case is that a court could force the club to pay the contract in full over a reasonable length of time. For them to leave on a free, a court would have to void the employment contract, while seems unlikely as the contract would be impaired rather than broken.

Whereas a cleaner would be on a four week notice period, so quicker and easier to get rid of.

I'm sure after Juventus, Barcelona and Leeds have agreed pay freezes or cuts it's just a matter of time before everyone else fails in line.

I agree, I think it is likely that at some stage a voluntary agreement will be reached which is why I would be loathe to do something compulsory on our own. 

Re the legal issue, I'm not a lawyer but have sufficient experience to know that "ways can often be found" if you have the financial clout. The situation, of course, is not directly comparable Rangers said that would take legal action against Naismith and Whittaker but nothing materialised. Ultimately, I guess the any case would rest on particular clauses of the contract* - but I don't think it would ever get that far.

* I think that player contracts lasting several years are a grey area in any case - it is well outside the normal notice period.

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...