Potential £15m loss

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 hours ago, ricardo said:

We are all taking a hit here one way or another.

Like Ive said before, Ive paid for my season ticket and would rather not have a refund if it means the club dies. I realise everyone has their own views but that is mine.

 

3 hours ago, Willmeister said:

I’m the same. That money went out a long time ago. I’ve not budgeted for getting that money back. I appreciate that everyone is in different financial states, but I would waive any refund offered to me by the club.

 

My view is that the club can keep my refund, if the executives take a pay cut (very soon, like now). 

[Surfer 1,547]

5 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Although a loss of £15m in revenue is also accompanied by the cutting of some costs, like the private jet charter we pay for to every away game, and the matchday policing bill (clubs have to pay a fortune for police). 

The loss of £15m is going to be dwarfed by the non-payment or rebate of £720m back to Sky. That's £36 million per PL club.... 

lets say our share is smaller - £30m, we are now looking at a revenue shortfall of £45million. That's quite a bit different eh? 

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, Surfer said:

The loss of £15m is going to be dwarfed by the non-payment or rebate of £720m back to Sky. That's £36 million per PL club.... 

lets say our share is smaller - £30m, we are now looking at a revenue shortfall of £45million. That's quite a bit different eh? 

I pointed this out somewhile back when folk on here were bleating about how there would be no more football.

It has now dawned on others the finacial implications - hence my thought that the PL would do the damnest to get these games played.

This may be resolved in part as was seen in an episode of Dads Army where about ten had borrowed £5 of another in a sort of 'daisy chain' and so ended up each handing the one fiver to the other....only to see itfinally end up where it began

Whcih would mean someone making an initial hefty loan so City can say pay off all money due to others, who can the do likewise till most of that type debt is cleared

asnd posters on here jumping up and down should be aware that much that is now happening regaring pay cuts etc is more about setting precedent and enforcement with regard to contract law than ever it is about greed of players etc

 

ps makes you wish we had built that new stand now........................😊

 

22 mins on wards, pic is not correct but you should get the idea

 

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

If the net loss to NCFC is only £15m then the club should grab it with both hands, it's peanuts. We have several players that could be sold to cover that.

In relation to season ticket refunds I will consider that when full details emerge; the financial loss to the club, how much the players contribute, how the club plans to mitigate the loss, future casual ticket price hike etc etc. 

[Mello Yello 2,280]

No qualms whatsoever in reclaiming my season ticket refund.......

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 526]

BBC reporting that Transfermarkt claiming Virus has devalued premier League squads by £1,6 billion, of which NCFC share is £21million .

This still leaves NCFC squad valued at £ 119 million. This £ 21million devaluation is less than devaluation of Raheem Stirling alone.

NCFC transfer policy for this season now looks inspirational.  

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

If there is a refund fans should take it or not take as they see fit and as their circumstances dictate. Perhaps, though, those who take it might, only if they are able, donate some money to charity.

There is the CSF, which works with the club but perhaps more to the point now there are charities for medical staff fallen on hard times. I know nothing about it - perrhaps some posters do - but a Google search produced the Cavell Nurses' Trust.

[Aggy 752]

18 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

 

...but for the high earners (players/coaches/management) then to not do anything themselves to help the club? Just continue lapping up the cream? One City Strong? Really? Sorry but it sits so very badly with me.

So you’re criticising employees for not bailing out their employer, and at the same time accuse them of ‘lapping up the cream’, with no idea of how much these same individuals plough into charities and local institutions (for instance).

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

36 minutes ago, Aggy said:

So you’re criticising employees for not bailing out their employer, and at the same time accuse them of ‘lapping up the cream’, 

Yep. Spot on.  If we're furloughing low paid staff, things can't look great.

36 minutes ago, Aggy said:

...with no idea of how much these same individuals plough into charities and local institutions (for instance).

No, I don't. If you have some information in that regard that will illuminate the situation further, by all means share it. If not, I can only assume that they don't normally 'plough' any money anywhere other than themselves.

OTBC

Edited April 9, 2020 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

58 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Yep. Spot on.  If we're furloughing low paid staff, things can't look great.

No, I don't. If you have some information in that regard that will illuminate the situation further, by all means share it. If not, I can only assume that they don't normally 'plough' any money anywhere other than themselves.

OTBC

Can I just ask here, these furloughed staff, they can't work right now as there's nought for them to do, so the club could send them home on full pay, but it hurts the club to do that as those wages would have been offset by matchdays and other revenue streams that aren't occuring.

So the club furlough the staff, keeping them employed and taking advantage of a government scheme that allows the club to keep those employees employed (along with all the other benefits like healthcare, pension etc), lets the employees collect their full salary and 80% of the cost is paid by the government.

There's no funny business here, the employees aren't losing out in any way, the club are using a totally legitimate government scheme and no-one is any worse off. So what exactly is the issue? Is it that the taxpayer is funding it? Well the government pisses away billions every year on useless rubbish so why is that the club's fault?

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

9 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Can I just ask here, these furloughed staff, they can't work right now as there's nought for them to do, so the club could send them home on full pay, but it hurts the club to do that as those wages would have been offset by matchdays and other revenue streams that aren't occuring.

So the club furlough the staff, keeping them employed and taking advantage of a government scheme that allows the club to keep those employees employed (along with all the other benefits like healthcare, pension etc), lets the employees collect their full salary and 80% of the cost is paid by the government.

There's no funny business here, the employees aren't losing out in any way, the club are using a totally legitimate government scheme and no-one is any worse off. So what exactly is the issue? Is it that the taxpayer is funding it? Well the government pisses away billions every year on useless rubbish so why is that the club's fault?

Hiya Wundaboy,

I hope you and your family are well.

I've got no problem with the club using the furloughing scheme as such, as clearly they've looked at the numbers and think we are going to be in the brown stuff when we come out of the other side of this.

That said, if we are going to be in the brown stuff, surely those staff who are taking the most out of the club, and therefore could do the most to help us through this difficult financial period, could be...well, helping! My issue is with the high earners at the club, not the club itself.

OTBC

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

12 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Hiya Wundaboy,

I hope you and your family are well.

I've got no problem with the club using the furloughing scheme as such, as clearly they've looked at the numbers and think we are going to be in the brown stuff when we come out of the other side of this.

That said, if we are going to be in the brown stuff, surely those staff who are taking the most out of the club, and therefore could do the most to help us through this difficult financial period, could be...well, helping! My issue is with the high earners at the club, not the club itself.

OTBC

Hi Disco,

Family are well thanks, thanks to the virus I'm seeing a lot more of my 3-month-old daughter than I could possibly have hoped for, couple that with saving 3 hours on the commute due to remote working and my wife enjoying having me around to help out while she's on mat leave and I'm enjoying the lockdown a lot more than some people! Hope your family is also ok?

I think sadly, that in the absence of any leadership or realism from the PFA you're just going to end up in a stand-off between the players who will point to their gold-plated contracts, and the club. You'll get some players are are willing to offer something up, others will look at donations etc to "do their bit", but as romantic as it looks furloughing our playing staff would just lead to our prized assets being snapped up by unscrupulous operators. Unless FIFA can put some kind of global player purchase/transfer ban into place to force the players to sit tight and accept the restrictions, the club have to try and safeguard the players as assets, otherwise run the risk of having to resume playing football without some of the boys who might still keep us out of the Championship by merit of points rather than some kind of artificial ending.

[Aggy 752]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Yep. Spot on.  If we're furloughing low paid staff, things can't look great.

 

So low paid staff don’t have to bail out their employer but high paid staff do? Where’s the line which divides those employees? I’m not just talking about football - presumably you think all employees in all industries earning over a certain amount should bail out their employers? How much?

[Aggy 752]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

No, I don't. If you have some information in that regard that will illuminate the situation further, by all means share it. If not, I can only assume that they don't normally 'plough' any money anywhere other than themselves.

Err righty oh. I bet footballers as a rule give a lot more to charity than you. Yes they can afford to do so, but this idea that footballers are all greedy is ridiculous. Even many of the most ‘horrible’ players give a lot to charity. 
 

How much of your salary have you voluntarily given up so your employer can cover other employees’ wages? And presumably you’re still making significant contributions to charities at the same time?

Edited April 9, 2020 by Aggy

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

3 hours ago, Aggy said:

So low paid staff don’t have to bail out their employer but high paid staff do? 

The low paid staff have agreed to be furloughed - saving the club 80 % of their wages. What have the high paid staff done again?

3 hours ago, Aggy said:

 Where’s the line which divides those employees? I’m not just talking about football - presumably you think all employees in all industries earning over a certain amount should bail out their employers? How much?

As I've stated before on another thread, my concern is Norwich City. What others do is for their own conscience. I hope you'd agree that the club are more than just another faceless business. They are part of all of us. Part of the community. One City Strong. 

3 hours ago, Aggy said:

Err righty oh. I bet footballers as a rule give a lot more to charity than you. Yes they can afford to do so, but this idea that footballers are all greedy is ridiculous. Even many of the most ‘horrible’ players give a lot to charity. 

When did I say footballers were greedy or even infer it? Please don't put words in my mouth, that's not nice. No doubt some footballers do give lots to charity, with the vast sums they earn - I just asked if you had any evidence of ours doing it as it was relevant to our conversation. I assume you don't.

3 hours ago, Aggy said:

How much of your salary have you voluntarily given up so your employer can cover other employees’ wages? And presumably you’re still making significant contributions to charities at the same time?

No-one employed by my employer has been furloughed. I'm working from home most of the time, although am going into work tomorrow to look after some key worker's children. If I had to take a pay cut to ensure the business I worked for wouldn't go under or get in the sh*t, yes, I'd do it. I'd like to think most people would.

I make contributions to charity when I can and have raised money for them at times. No great amounts.

I'm not sure why you're so aggressively defending the players. Players come and go. My concern is the club.

OTBC