Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow_belly

Transfer ban for clubs like Norwich

Recommended Posts

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-spurs-transfer-ban-talksport-4022210

yes I am a supporter, yes I am a season ticket holder and yes I understand business but sometimes you have to do the right thing. No ...NCFC is not doing the right thing, and they KNOW it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NCFC is not doing the right thing, and they KNOW it.

And that includes the players. Don't wait for that crook Graham Taylor to tell you, do it off your own bat. Show some backbone.

Share this post


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

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/liverpool-spurs-transfer-ban-talksport-4022210

yes I am a supporter, yes I am a season ticket holder and yes I understand business but sometimes you have to do the right thing. No ...NCFC is not doing the right thing, and they KNOW it.

Can you explain in more detail?     Would contend that comparing us having a self-funding business model and most likely to be a Championship side next season compared to Liverpool and Spurs and most other clubs who have spent many years in the Champions League / Premier League is unrealistic, even unfair.    Just because we are in the Premier League doesn't mean that we are 'rich' all of a sudden and above the countries rules of business.    The club are looking after its staff, some of whom may be otherwise unemployed if this goes on too long and the thousands of dense idiots keep going out ..... I trust the club to be genuine, transparent and open in its dealings and that's why were all so proud of what this club is about.    People making these negative statements should back them up with either facts or at least a reason, otherwise best not comment.   

Edited by ged in the onion bag
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just more **** from talk sport, nothing to see here. There’s no sport to talk about so they have to come up with something controversial to spark debate. Move on 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is the club started the $hite with its actions. These people having nothing to talk about to earn their corn and clubs like us have just given them something to expand on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaah..I've got it now (took me a couple of days) but you're Keith Scott (out of season) aren't you? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Don't wait for that crook Graham Taylor to tell you.

Well they'd be waiting a long time, he died three years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Well they'd be waiting a long time, he died three years ago.

You know full well who he means. The PFA are at fault for not having got rid of Taylor a long time ago. Off the top of my head I would suggest Jermaine Jenas should be the one to replace him. 

Share this post


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

Trouble is the club started the $hite with its actions. These people having nothing to talk about to earn their corn and clubs like us have just given them something to expand on.

You may wish to reflect that this type so sensationalist, unfounded, ridiculous, anti-intelligence journalism (as widely practised by TalkSport) only flourishes because there are gullible people willing to look for an excuse to be angry.

It would be nice to think that you would conclude that you are  part of the problem.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very easy to point your finger at the players but it is the EPL and the Government who are to blame. Football should by now have drawn a line under this season like every other sport. But encouraged by the Government they persist with the fanciful idea of a festival of football to finish the season. 

If common sense prevailed the season would be ended and there would be a quick negotiation with the TV companies to sort out money. At that point the clubs can sort out wage reductions, but only then. At the moment the clubs have asked for a 30% reduction with no evidence that they are going to lose tv money. 

If I was representing the players I would be seeking an assurance that no money will be spent on transfer fees during the summer before I agreed to anything. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I do love these parody threads.

Any suggestion that an organisation acting lawfully should be penalised for doing so is just laughable. Or are we going to avoid all organisations that are acting this way?  Might be interesting to try.

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


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

I do love these parody threads.

Any suggestion that an organisation acting lawfully should be penalised for doing so is just laughable. Or are we going to avoid all organisations that are acting this way?  Might be interesting to try.

Can you think of any examples of things that you are legally allowed to do but would not be good, sensible or fair things to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Can anyone provide some figures for wages broken down into type ?

 

 

As BP indicates, you would need a detailed breakdown from the club. Going only by the accounts for last season the overall wage bill was £54m and as part of that player wages (including bonuses) were £35m.

There were 139 football staff and 148 non-football, but obviously many of those football staff don't come into the player-wage category, so you can't say the £35m was shared by the 139 and the remaining £19m was shared by the 149.

Share this post


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

Can you think of any examples of things that you are legally allowed to do but would not be good, sensible or fair things to do?

Voting Tory...😎

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

As BP indicates, you would need a detailed breakdown from the club. Going only by the accounts for last season the overall wage bill was £54m and as part of that player wages (including bonuses) were £35m.

There were 139 football staff and 148 non-football, but obviously many of those football staff don't come into the player-wage category, so you can't say the £35m was shared by the 139 and the remaining £19m was shared by the 149.

Thanks.  By some very quick sums and assuming that cuts are taken by the highest paid non playing staff a 30% pay cut for players would probably cover salaries of all other non playing staff fairly comfortably.  

So a plan could be: Government pays staff on furlough.  Players put savings into a pot. If football recommences soon the tax-payer gets a fat cheque, if it doesnt the club draws from the pot to keep it afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may wish to reflect that this type so sensationalist, unfounded, ridiculous, anti-intelligence journalism (as widely practised by TalkSport) only flourishes because there are gullible people willing to look for an excuse to be angry.

It would be nice to think that you would conclude that you are  part of the problem.

Surely you mean we are part of the problem. I have said something and you have responded. Personally I have never listened to TalkSport ever. But somebody posted an item on here and in my boredom I thought I would give an opinion on it.

And I don't know what their listening figures are but assume big enough to still remain on the airwaves.

And yes I am angry at my club. It is morally wrong what they are doing.

  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Can you think of any examples of things that you are legally allowed to do but would not be good, sensible or fair things to do?

Would you include allowing some of your employees to retain a salary by using a government backed scheme rather than making them redundant in that category?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moral outrage about this bemuses me.

The club couldn’t force the players (or anyone else) to take a thirty percent pay cut. The club couldn’t afford to pay all salaries when it has no income for the foreseeable future. Without being able to force players to take a pay cut, the alternatives were to make non playing (cheaper) staff redundant, or put them on the furlough scheme. The club chose the latter, allowing the staff to retain a salary - and the club opted (I understand) to top up their wages so the staff don’t lose out on anything.

The players hadn’t agreed to take a thirty per cent pay cut when the club acted. Looking at Purple’s figures, and acknowledging that it’s not quite as easy as saying 19 million for everyone else, it’s still a fairly safe bet that by saving 80 per cent (up to 2,500 per employee) of the non-playing staff’s salaries even for a week or two, the club would have been saving quite a lot of money. We acted a week or two before the PFA had even started having discussions with players. 

I’ve said this multiple times now, but loads of companies have put lower earning/admin staff on the furlough scheme while not putting their high earners/fee generators on to it. Where’s the outcry about those businesses not unilaterally deducting some employees’ wages to cover wages of other employees? Because that seems to be the thrust of the argument against the club.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Aggy said:

The moral outrage about this bemuses me.

The club couldn’t force the players (or anyone else) to take a thirty percent pay cut. The club couldn’t afford to pay all salaries when it has no income for the foreseeable future. Without being able to force players to take a pay cut, the alternatives were to make non playing (cheaper) staff redundant, or put them on the furlough scheme. The club chose the latter, allowing the staff to retain a salary - and the club opted (I understand) to top up their wages so the staff don’t lose out on anything.

The players hadn’t agreed to take a thirty per cent pay cut when the club acted. Looking at Purple’s figures, and acknowledging that it’s not quite as easy as saying 19 million for everyone else, it’s still a fairly safe bet that by saving 80 per cent (up to 2,500 per employee) of the non-playing staff’s salaries even for a week or two, the club would have been saving quite a lot of money. We acted a week or two before the PFA had even started having discussions with players. 

I’ve said this multiple times now, but loads of companies have put lower earning/admin staff on the furlough scheme while not putting their high earners/fee generators on to it. Where’s the outcry about those businesses not unilaterally deducting some employees’ wages to cover wages of other employees? Because that seems to be the thrust of the argument against the club.

You have far too much common sense for your own good Aggy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Can you think of any examples of things that you are legally allowed to do but would not be good, sensible or fair things to do?

Offer Paul Lambert his old job back?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems ludicrous to me but I think some people just enjoy being morally outraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Aggy but I would have no complaints about the furlough bring used by the club if at the same time the players agreed to take the cut.

For the life of me I really cannot see where anyone sees that it is justified for the club to have no income, and no idea when it will, and yet continue to pay the top earners their full wage because of "contracts".

So next season, we have no money because we continued to pay the players and cannot afford to buy new players and the players moan the club is unambitious as do some supporters.

Everyone in employment has a contract even if it is zero hours. What makes a footballer different? The main reason they are so wealthy is because they argued in court that they should be treated the same as other workers.

And Gordon Taylor has no right to compare the argument with PPE and face masks. Shouldn't have expected anything different from him though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said this many times.  I have no objection to the use of the furlough scheme if all other options have been exhausted.

But what evidence do we have that the highest paid earners have been asked to take a cut? How many at a director level have come out and said that they will take a hit?

 

Share this post


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


I’ve said this multiple times now, but loads of companies have put lower earning/admin staff on the furlough scheme while not putting their high earners/fee generators on to it. Where’s the outcry about those businesses not unilaterally deducting some employees’ wages to cover wages of other employees? Because that seems to be the thrust of the argument against the club.

That's correct and from a business point oof view your only choice. Once furloughed, your staff can't perform any work for you, so sales staff and other revenue earners have to be retained. Beats me why footballers are attacked and not the management of the clubs, or for that matter people like Branson and Mogg etc who would / are doing what the club is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, who in the club hierarchy (specifically at board level) are on the club payroll and will they be sacrificing a % of their salary?.......Our majority shareholding duo must have been consulted and are (I assume) in agreement with the chosen path of furloughing elements of the non-playing staff of NCFC?.....Perhaps they're thinking of protecting their tenure and using furlough as financial damage limitation?..... 

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...