Transfer ban for clubs like Norwich

[Surfer 1,547]

Of course you use furlough as financial damage limitation. That is what the scheme is designed to do. 

Back to the players. Yes they are very well paid, but if the EPL does not have player contracts with force majure loss of revenue clauses, then more fool them. If the clubs already know that they will lose 30% of their revenue based on non completion of the season then applying a 30% across the board salary reduction would be perfectly understandable and the players I am sure would go along. But it's not clear yet what the situation really is, and why should the players save immensely wealthy club owners like Amramovitch, Glazer, Kroneke, Henry, Moshiri etc etc a penny without rock solid proof?

(and most owners are not even British, or European, but we'll put that to one side) 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Surfer

[Surfer 1,547]

p.s. Given there is no sport, why hasn't TalkS*ite been furloughed yet?

They can't even get this "fact" right ...On Saturday, the Reds became the fifth Premier League club to furlough staff, joining Tottenham, Newcastle, Bournemouth and Newcastle.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

Is it just a coincidence that she is an Ipswich fan?

[Aggy 752]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

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".

If the players don’t agree to go on the furlough scheme, or take a pay cut, you can’t make them. Nothing to do with “justification”. You can’t unilaterally breach a contract and just refuse to pay people’s salaries.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If the players don’t agree to go on the furlough scheme, or take a pay cut, you can’t make them. Nothing to do with “justification”. You can’t unilaterally breach a contract and just refuse to pay people’s salaries.

This is just hiding behind legalities. You sound as if you don't want them to take a cut to help the club.

[Surfer 1,547]

21 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

If the players don’t agree to go on the furlough scheme, or take a pay cut, you can’t make them. Nothing to do with “justification”. You can’t unilaterally breach a contract and just refuse to pay people’s salaries.

This is just hiding behind legalities. You sound as if you don't want them to take a cut to help the club.

Ah well, there is the rub KG. Is the proposed pay cut to help the club(s) or to help society? If it is the former then it's up to the clubs to work that out and not up to the Government or Press to publicly pillory the players. The clubs would help their own cause if they laid out what the actual financial ramifications are and what they propose to do to help society. £20M for the NHS is chump change for the EPL - it's less than half the amount per club than we paid Coventry for their 19 year old left back. £200M and we are talking....

[Aggy 752]

41 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

This is just hiding behind legalities.

Not sure if I’m being baited here or if this is a serious post KG, but... are you suggesting the world would be a better place if employers could just choose when to bother complying with an employee’s contract? 

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

I think some people have decided their position and won’t be moved, Aggy, whatever the facts might be.  Now that Liverpool have reversed their position I imagine we’ll get even more moaning, but if people can’t see that our financial situation is somewhat different to them, then God help them.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Branston Pickle

[yellow_belly 226]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/52191140

 

should we?

[Badger 2,405]

4 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

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.

As I understand it, the club is making up the wages of the staff so that they don't lose out, so they are not subject to a cut?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Not sure if I’m being baited here or if this is a serious post KG, but... are you suggesting the world would be a better place if employers could just choose when to bother complying with an employee’s contract?

Not baiting at all. It just takes a little compromise and sense to help the club. Forget the NHS or any other item except the club itself.

The club has no income. It has furloughed the non playing staff to enable them to to receive 80% of their wages, one way or another. And the club has said they will pay said staff the other 20%.

So ignoring the players, apart from anything else, the club is losing that 20% of the non playing staff's wages.

And at the moment they are paying 100% of the player's wages.

So the club has no income and yet it is paying out a lot of money with no idea whether they will have to pay back their share of the TV money or whether they will have any more income in case the season is ended.

The players must have known about what was happening at Barca and Juve. They knew the players had agreed an interim contract with their clubs, a one off, that would see their wages cut by certain amounts.

So it is possible to negotiate a moratorium on current contracts and enable new ones.

I have heard remarks about whether clubs would try and extend it and cut players wages per se. Nonsense. As much as their current contracts are being honoured at the moment despite the crisis, they would honour the demise of the interim contracts once playing resumes.

 

 

[Barbe bleu 812]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

I think some people have decided their position and won’t be moved, Aggy, whatever the facts might be. 

Yes, I think that is a fair assessment.   You can see the names and know which side they will come down on in the post. 

In fact we may as well just post a series of names and save the bother of having to read a post as the contents will largely already be known.

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You can see the names and know which side they will come down on in the post. 

In fact we may as well just post a series of names and save the bother of having to read a post as the contents will largely already be known.

I think that's a bit unfair. I know that this thread and others has posts from people who always moan about the club, given any opportunity - but KG is not one of them and nor are some of the others who have shown concern.

TBH though, I really can't understand why people are opposed to the club using the furlough scheme.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Badger
Clarified meaning

[Barbe bleu 812]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I think that's a bit unfair. I know that this thread and others has posts from people who always moan about the club, given any opportunity - but KG is not one of them and nor are some of the others who have shown concern.

If I see KGs post I can pretty much predict what it will say.

On the other side the same is certainly true for BP

And I'm no different 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think some people have decided their position and won’t be moved, Aggy, whatever the facts might be.  Now that Liverpool have reversed their position I imagine we’ll get even more moaning, but if people can’t see that our financial situation is somewhat different to them, then God help them.

Slightly arrogant post. You are right and the rest wrong.

Here is a fact. Our situation is that 80% of the non playing staff's wages are going to be paid by the Government. That while the players will not agree to take a pay cut to help out the club that has no income. Liverpool have plenty of money and will still be generating some income. And they have a wealthy owner who can borrow. While we are a club that is using a self generating income model. We will be lucky to be bringing in anything. Can you not see it is in the players own interests to protect their own livelihoods.

It doesn't matter whether other industries have CEO's who are raking it in. We are talking about football. Our club. The one that has been so close to the wall. And not that long ago if we are to believe we had to sell Maddison or go under.

Just because Hancock raised it, football has cried foul. Why shouldn't he raise it? He was pointing out what so many of us believe is an immoral position but also one that could wreck clubs futures.

And see my reply to Aggy about contracts. Tell me its impossible,

 

[not a clue 19]

“The club has no income”

Well, they do still have some of the season ticket income, has the tv money stopped? and what about sponsorship?

[Aggy 752]

22 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

I’ll start this post by saying that whether the players should/could be agreeing to take a pay cut is a different question. Thirty per cent (as the prem suggested) seems high, but plenty of employees in other industries have agreed to take pay cuts (some of my friends are working 4 days a week and getting 80 per cent pay for instance). So I don’t disagree with your general point that a conversation with the players, meeting a mutually agreeable point that saves the clubs money, without impacting the players too much, and saving other jobs would be a sensible position for everyone to reach.

My point is not that the club shouldn’t be having those discussions with the players. 

My point is that the club can’t unilaterally, without the agreement of the players, change the terms of their contracts or start paying them less. How long would it take to have those discussions with every player? In the meantime, the club is still paying full salaries for non playing staff.

Instead, we have acted swiftly and decisively, the non-playing staff are not disadvantaged, the club can budget better and the conversations with the players can start/continue. 

Lots of companies have done exactly the same as the club. Put lower paid employees on furlough and then had discussions with higher paid staff about pay cuts. But they’ve still put the lower paid staff on furlough first. In fact, a number of companies got rid of anyone with less than two years’ employment before the furlough scheme was announced (and only some have taken those people back on to benefit from the furlough scheme since). I’d hazard a guess that a majority of businesses using the furlough scheme could have put far fewer people on furlough if they had discussed wide ranging pay cuts with other members of staff first. The problem is all the time those discussions are going on, the business is losing money. And there’s no guarantee the high earning employees will agree to the pay cut.

Also need to remember that it’s not just salaries. The club (like other businesses) has other outgoings too. So even a twenty per cent pay cut for all playing staff might not cover full salaries of every non-playing employee.

As for why Hancock shouldn’t raise it - because the players are employees. Very well paid employees, but employees all the same. They aren’t shareholders. They don’t benefit from profit the clubs make. Why should any employee be publicly shamed by a government minister into taking a pay cut? Why didn’t Hancock say the same about highly paid employees and/or shareholders at businesses in other industries? 

[yellow_belly 226]

Hancock was answering a direct question.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

We will not convince each other about this so it's best if we digitally shake hands on this one.🤝 Main thing is we all keep safe.

[Branston Pickle 3,634]

The problem is, KG, that this thread is suggesting that we should have a transfer ban - I could never agree to disagree on that as it’s a daft suggestion!

[Surfer 1,547]

A transfer ban to say we couldn’t add any more players, or a transfer ban to say we couldn’t sell anyone, or both? 

[yellow_belly 226]

I totally agree with KG. 🤝

The post was actually highlighting that we should re look at furloughing our  non playing staff.

 

Yes, I understand the reasons and arguments for using this scheme. 
But, fundamentally, I believe that we shouldn’t. So much so, that I have cancelled my season ticket for next season.

I wish that the Stowmarket Two ‘did a Liverpool’ and admit this wrong, and reverse the decision.

Continuing to take taxpayers money, that we will all need to repay, is a little bit smelly and I would have thought we would have done this as a last resort rather than as a first port of call. (If NCFC did this I would not have been so disappointed and disgusted by them!)

It is my opinion and others have a different take on life.

But anyone agreeing with this teally can not grumble at Amazon etc not paying ‘enough tax’. After all they haven’t broken the law, they have just interpreted it a different way to most in order to keep more money and payout less. In principle, NCFC have down this. We are not a little grubby and most fair minded folk, without rose tinted biased glasses, think this way. Hence the outrage.

But to those who disagree, stay happy and healthy... and have a little think about the other side of the argument rather than calling names to those that disagree with you.

The main enemy is Coronavirus, just ask Boris. Our thoughts, prayers and money should be focused here not with some people chasing a ball around.

Have a good day.

 

[yellow_belly 226]

Apologies for the grammar and spelling above. The autocorrect on my phone had a fun changing everything into something that made very little sense. Think of it as a code breaking quiz..!

[Badger 2,405]

18 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Everyone in employment has a contract even if it is zero hours. What makes a footballer different?

Their contracts.

Which other job contract has a notice period of up to 4 or 5 years? To protect this from being abused, player contracts allow players to leave on a free if their pay is cut. 

So if we arbitrarily cut players wages to save a couple of million, we could potentially lose players with a transfer value of tens of millions.

It certainly wouldn't help the club.

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

I still fail to see the issue some have with NCFC furloughing its staff that currently have no role due to the virus.

I think we get confused with the 'salaries' paid under short term contracts to the playing staff as opposed to the ordinary staff that maintain the fabric of the stadium, the shop, the back room and so on. Far and away the largest outgoing of the club is these playing staff.

Without any significant income, and no means of reducing outgoings (we could sack them) I can only imagine the forced firesale of some of our assets is what these 'supporters' wish.

Yes the players etc. need to take a 30% moral cut but even then a 3 month furlough is probably required.

We are not a wealthy club  - we try to live within our means but the furlough scheme is exactly for this type of situation and requirement. NCFC does not need to apologize.

Edited April 7, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

12 hours ago, yellow_belly said:

Hancock was answering a direct question.

If he answered it directly,  then he's  no politician. 

[Barbe bleu 812]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

I still fail to see the issue some have with NCFC furloughing its staff that currently have no role due to the virus.

I think we get confused with the 'salaries' paid under short term contracts to the playing staff as opposed to the ordinary staff that maintain the fabric of the stadium, the shop, the back room and so on. Far and away the largest outgoing of the club is these playing staff.

Without any significant income, and no means of reducing outgoings (we could sack them) I can only imagine the forced firesale of some of our assets is what these 'supporters' wish.

Yes the players etc. need to take a 30% moral cut but even then a 3 month furlough is probably required.

We are not a wealthy club  - we try to live within our means but the furlough scheme is exactly for this type of situation and requirement. NCFC does not need to apologize.

Agreed, we might need to furlough if the money can not be found from elsewhere.

But....what evidence is there that we have even looked? The only statement from the club that i have seen is Stuart Webber saying that he couldn't look the players in the eye and ask.

[Badger 2,405]

I really think that many people of this and other threads are completely missing the point of the furlough scheme. It is to protect peoples' jobs and to prevent the economy from going into a massive downwards spiral.

It is firms that do not use the scheme that are being massively socially irresponsible.

[Barbe bleu 812]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I really think that many people of this and other threads are completely missing the point of the furlough scheme. It is to protect peoples' jobs and to prevent the economy from going into a massive downwards spiral.

This makes sense now.

You are talking about the scheme in general whereas most posters are talking about the club's use of it in isolation.

I doubt anyone here would say that the scheme is a good thing in principle but most would argue that not every business should use it. 

 

[Badger 2,405]

15 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

This makes sense now.

You are talking about the scheme in general whereas most posters are talking about the club's use of it in isolation.

I doubt anyone here would say that the scheme is a good thing in principle but most would argue that not every business should use it. 

 

But Norwich City is just a small part of the football world, which is small part of the economy as a whole. 

There are other firms that could probably weather the financial storm if they take the right actions. this would almost certainly involve cutbacks - staffing and other costs; dividends to shareholders etc. However, the greater the extent to which they take such action, the greater the extent a terrible short term health crisis is turned into a long term financial and economic disaster. Poverty costs lives as well as disease.

I have voted for several parties over the years but never the Conservatives: however, apart from being a bit slow off the mark, they have responded very well to the crisis. I would have expected a far less radical response to the economic ramifications of the crisis, especially given the faux arguments that they used for the financial crisis of 2008. However, they have greatly surprised me and they should be commended on their economic actions and I hope that they continue in the same vein, so that Britain can recover properly from the crisis and it not turn into long-term disaster. Maintaining aggregate demand through the profound and unprecedented economic shock is essential. I fear that Hancock's statements may suggest that he doesn't get it (although he may just have been wrong-footed) but Johnson and Sunak, the Chancellor, seem to have done. It is why the illness to Johnson is so worrying (quite apart from concerns to another human being).

The furlough scheme is an economic life-saver and should be deployed by firms, to protect their health and that of the economy.