Jump to content
A Load of Squit

Safe, sensible hands guiding the club

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

From the accounts there were payments to “executive employees” or “key non director employees” of something in the region of £2m last year. I would assume that the Webber’s and Kensell would be part of that. 

I cannot find that, Jim, but it sounds right.

Share this post


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

I think that the chances that players will agree pay cuts are vanishingly small anyway - it would just be tokenism. the players and staff did far more by their contribution to local charities with their 200K donation.

Thats a perfectly reasonable position to take. My own view is that the players and execs can contribute more than 200k and that leadership should be demonstrated at the top.

 

37 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

Not sure about the analogy at all, however to answer your question

1. Cutting greenhouse gases is not a "sacrifice" but a "benefit." Living in a less polluted atmosphere is more pleasant regardless of any global warming benefit.

2. Our greenhouse gas emission might be smaller be smaller than other countries but we should nevertheless maximise any advantage we can obtain by using modern energy rather than relying on historic sources. It also makes more sense to use largely domestically produced renewable energy than using finite resources that cannot be replenished.

I cant argue with this but most would observe that there is another advantage(and probably the  biggest) of us making cuts to emissions. It gives the rest fewer places to hide.  If we lead others might follow.

Edited by Barbe bleu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Then even more important we do not timidly accept some contrived plan for ending the season that sees us relegated. 

I hope not. the best way would be for the season to continue, probably behind closed doors - but who knows if it will be possible? If not I suspect that there will be an "almighty bun fight," the politics of which might not favour us.

Share this post


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

Your refusal to accept the evidence is Trump-like.

How? Why have other clubs managed to unlock binding contracts?

Which clubs? Several have accepted deferrals, which is quite different. Some Arsenal players have accepted a highly conditional cut, but details are still emerging as to the extent that this is a genuine cut as opposed to a deferral. If it has been done, and I'm not sure the extent to which it has been, it has been done with the consent of the players.

I don't disagree with much of the rest that you have written and suspect that many of our values are the same. However, if I were a journeyman player (and let's face it many/ most of ours are unlikely to see the premier league again if we are relegated) I would be extremely reluctant to give up the one really big pay day that could set me and my family up for life. I know that footballers are rich in everyday terms, but in comparison with most PL players, ours are paupers! 

If the people think that it is some sense "wrong" for players and others, earn unimaginably wages, they should tax it at a higher marginal rate and use the money to support nurses/ careworkers/ other essential workers are suddenly heroes but have been financially abused for the last 10 years at least. I suspect you might agree with this, but with some others they are now calling on players to take pay cuts to "support the NHS" after happily voting for years to allow the very richest largely escape tax and for poorly-paid essential workers to be exploited. Equally, some of those currently criticising the club for not cutting wages are the same people who have argued that we should have spent loads more in the past. (Not suggesting that you fit into either category.)

Re colour, did you highlight the text first?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Badger said:

We can't they are binding contracts. You might as well suggest that we refuse to pay VAT - it would be equally practicable.

I would expect the non playing staff are on legally binding contracts, yet they are being furloughed! Why not furlough the playing staff and ask them to except the £2400 a month from the government?

obviously this is a ridiculous statement that I make purely to emphasise that ultimately the players have all the power to stand firm and except no reduction in salaries as the club can’t risk disgruntled players who, once things get going again, refuse to preform, or whose resale value is diminished!

As I’ve stated in other threads, the club’s decision to furlough staff is not so much questionable from a business sense but from a moral sense! 
Without going all ‘Karl Marx’ the morally right thing to do is those more fortunate than others should relinquish a small proportion of their wealth for the greater good! But in this capitalist society there’s no chance of that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re colour, did you highlight the text first?

Yes and I have now tried with just a single letter than a paragraph and it worked.

The clubs whose players have taken cuts, not deferrals are some of the biggest in the business.

Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund are just five. And I would expect their players to be on very similar and watertight contracts. But there was a will to do it and they achieved it. And of course Arsenal managed to persuade all but three players to take cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double N. You have a good insight into much of the club. Are they all united? Do Delia and Michael only approach matters through an agenda at a board meeting or are they very much hands on when Webber and Kensell approach the media?

Well I'm glad to see that the club will not put the player's or anybody elses health in jeopardy just to finish the season. 

I'll take their word for it about not talking about wages but find it hard to believe there hasn't been some dialogue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Cliff the Canary said:

I would expect the non playing staff are on legally binding contracts, yet they are being furloughed! Why not furlough the playing staff and ask them to except the £2400 a month from the government?

1. Footballers contracts are different to "normal" employment contracts.

2. The furloughed staff are not "out of pocket:" the club is making up the 20%. There is no benefit to anyone to furloughing playing staff. I think that we are agreed that the idea is a nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sgncfc said:

O can understand all of these slightly differing views, but I always go back to the maths when I can and in particular in view of Ben Kensall's statement it is pertinent that we do. His talk of projected losses etc is just one plan out of dozens when no one knows what is going to happen yet.

If we have furloughed 200 staff this will include a number of casuals who earn much less per month than the maximum furlough reclaim amount. But let's give the club the benefit of the doubt and say that all 200 of these people earn at least £30,000 per annum. So the maximum amount of money they can get back from the furlough scheme is 200 x £2,500 x 4 months = £2m.

Our wageroll for playing staff this financial year is estimated to be £64m I believe. That is £5.33m per month. Our players had to give up 3% of their salary to save the club enough money to not have to furlough. 3%. Let me repeat that again - THREE PER CENT!!!!!

A second point. Our highest paid director last year earned something over £400,000. Let's assume he's had a rise since as a reward for promotion. Should we also assume that his partner, who also works for the club in a senior position, brings in another fair sum to the household, certainly well into six figures.

Do we all agree that it is fair that that household should continue to bank their normal income of probably around £50-60,000 per month at this moment when the club is claiming £2m in benefits from the taxpayer. A simple yes or no will suffice. (I'll give you a clue - the answer is no, if you have any morality at all).

Businesses all over the country are struggling to survive. Their owners are earning nothing. I personally know many who have reduced their personal income to almost zero. 

Sorry - I hear all of your arguments and the desperation in Ben Kensall's statement but you are defending the indefensible

Give it up mate, they just don't want to hear it.

Welfare for footballers. 

I'm looking forward to seeing what Webber earns for this season. I'm expecting something approaching £1m (double £480k), based on the way McNally's pay increased. 

 

Share this post


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

The clubs whose players have taken cuts, not deferrals are some of the biggest in the business.

Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Borussia Dortmund are just five. And I would expect their players to be on very similar and watertight contracts. But there was a will to do it and they achieved it. And of course Arsenal managed to persuade all but three players to take cuts.

1. Yes they are some of the biggest in the business and most have a wealth that our players can only imagine.

2. What is publicised in the media is not as straightforward as it is portrayed. The Juventus deal, for example, states,

“The understanding provides for the reduction of the compensation for an amount equal to the monthly payments of March, April, May and June 2020. 

In the coming weeks, personal agreements with the players and the coach will be finalised, as required by the current regulations. 

Should the current season’s matches be rescheduled, the club will negotiate in good faith with the players and the coach conditional increases of compensations according to the actual resumption and finalisation of official competitions.”

In other words, it hasn't been finalised and we are negotiating how the players will be compensated in the future for the reduction now. In the end, it may not be much different to a deferral.

3. There is only one English club here and their deal is very strongly caveated with conditions that make it look like a deferral.

Sorry KG, most of this is likely to be PR spin.

Share this post


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

Double N. You have a good insight into much of the club. Are they all united? Do Delia and Michael only approach matters through an agenda at a board meeting or are they very much hands on when Webber and Kensell approach the media?

Well I'm glad to see that the club will not put the player's or anybody elses health in jeopardy just to finish the season. 

I'll take their word for it about not talking about wages but find it hard to believe there hasn't been some dialogue.

I don't have much of a handle on anything POPs🙃 I just posted that link because it has more substance than some press reports.

Delia and Michael trust the people they put in charge. That's the only agenda I see from them. As for those in charge I see integrity being as important as results.

The ones in charge are more open than most I've known over the years. They are honest about what they are doing as can be seen by the link. If you email your concerns to them I would be very disappointed if you didn't get a personal reply. If you include your phone number you may even get a phone call.

One thing I know for sure is what people are judged for after this is over will be a very different thing to what they signed up for. That applies from the PM down to all decision makers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One thing I know for sure is what people are judged for after this is over will be a very different thing to what they signed up for. That applies from the PM down to all decision makers.

Very true

Share this post


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

1. Footballers contracts are different to "normal" employment contracts.

2. The furloughed staff are not "out of pocket:" the club is making up the 20%. There is no benefit to anyone to furloughing playing staff. I think that we are agreed that the idea is a nonsense.

But are we agreed that the morally correct thing would be for the players to sacrifice a percentage of their exorbitant salaries, for the greater good?

Or should they refuse and continue to pocket a weekly salary that is equivalent to most annual salaries, whilst the average worker bares the burden?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put TvB. The bondholders may have got their nice promotion bonus last year but unlike the execs there will be no tasty relegation bonus for them. Remember McNallys £1,000 per day bonus in a relegation season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about a scheme where the higher earners pay more to help through these times. I see £2,500 pm as the furlough figure so why not insist on a percentage of any earnings above £2,500 pm to go to the public purse for this pandemic. This wouldn't have to be a big percentage. But to make it fair it would have to include income from investments, pensions etc.Sounds fair to me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sgncfc said:

O can understand all of these slightly differing views, but I always go back to the maths when I can and in particular in view of Ben Kensall's statement it is pertinent that we do. His talk of projected losses etc is just one plan out of dozens when no one knows what is going to happen yet.

If we have furloughed 200 staff this will include a number of casuals who earn much less per month than the maximum furlough reclaim amount. But let's give the club the benefit of the doubt and say that all 200 of these people earn at least £30,000 per annum. So the maximum amount of money they can get back from the furlough scheme is 200 x £2,500 x 4 months = £2m.

Our wageroll for playing staff this financial year is estimated to be £64m I believe. That is £5.33m per month. Our players had to give up 3% of their salary to save the club enough money to not have to furlough. 3%. Let me repeat that again - THREE PER CENT!!!!!

A second point. Our highest paid director last year earned something over £400,000. Let's assume he's had a rise since as a reward for promotion. Should we also assume that his partner, who also works for the club in a senior position, brings in another fair sum to the household, certainly well into six figures.

Do we all agree that it is fair that that household should continue to bank their normal income of probably around £50-60,000 per month at this moment when the club is claiming £2m in benefits from the taxpayer. A simple yes or no will suffice. (I'll give you a clue - the answer is no, if you have any morality at all).

Businesses all over the country are struggling to survive. Their owners are earning nothing. I personally know many who have reduced their personal income to almost zero. 

Sorry - I hear all of your arguments and the desperation in Ben Kensall's statement but you are defending the indefensible.

 

 

This 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nigel that is a decent idea. Another idea would be for the government to exclude certain industries. For example they could turn all football over to the Football Association and say sort it with no furloughing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

Well I will most certainly be taking my refund/reimbursement if and when it's offered - and I won't feel one iota of personal guilt in doing so.....There are those involved in the higher/upper echelons of our club whom financially won't be out of pocket regardless of the future fate of NCFC.....

Hear, hear.

IF the players have been approached to take a pay cut and have refused then I have no problem with them seeking employment elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff the Canary said:

But are we agreed that the morally correct thing would be for the players to sacrifice a percentage of their exorbitant salaries, for the greater good?

Or should they refuse and continue to pocket a weekly salary that is equivalent to most annual salaries, whilst the average worker bares the burden?

Not really. I agree with you in many senses that the huge gaps in wealth and income are wrong, but don't think that this should be resolved by random individuals agreeing to forfeit a proportion of their income, whilst most others don't.

They exist in the same society as we do - one that values wealth and looks above all things - why should they have to reject the values of society unilaterally because of a faux outrage manufactured by the press that generally supports and works for that very inequality in the first place? I'd rather people retained their outrage and voted appropriately, but experience suggests that they won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Nigel that is a decent idea. Another idea would be for the government to exclude certain industries. For example they could turn all football over to the Football Association and say sort it with no furloughing.

In which case, many loads of other people would have been made redundant.

I am no fan of Richard Branson either, and baulk at the idea of seeking taxpayer help to support his airline when he had hundreds of millions of personal wealth. However, my best guess is that without support, Branson will not support the business at risk to his own wealth. The consequence? Lots of "ordinary people" are put out of work.

Share this post


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

Not really. I agree with you in many senses that the huge gaps in wealth and income are wrong, but don't think that this should be resolved by random individuals agreeing to forfeit a proportion of their income, whilst most others don't. 

So you don't think they should be expected by customers and shareholders to voluntarily give up a measly 3 percent of their annual salary as a complete one off to save the taxpayer £2m. 

But you do think they should be taxed at 75 percent instead of 45 percent. 

Right. 

Ps. Millions of people are forfeiting part of their salary throughout the country! 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

Well I will most certainly be taking my refund/reimbursement if and when it's offered - and I won't feel one iota of personal guilt in doing so.....There are those involved in the higher/upper echelons of our club whom financially won't be out of pocket regardless of the future fate of NCFC.....

That's entirely your choice and right.

But realistically, do you expect players/ coaches etc to feel as much as we do about the club as we do? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Give it up mate, they just don't want to hear it.

Welfare for footballers. 

I'm looking forward to seeing what Webber earns for this season. I'm expecting something approaching £1m (double £480k), based on the way McNally's pay increased. 

 

Flouncing off the board with a big old announcement loses its impact a little when you're back within a week pretending nothing happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

So you don't think they should be expected by customers and shareholders to voluntarily give up a measly 3 percent of their annual salary as a complete one off to save the taxpayer £2m. 

I don't recognise the figures - please explain?

But you do think they should be taxed at 75 percent instead of 45 percent. 

Right. 

The 75% figure was plucked from the air, but yes, I am in favour of progressive taxation and don't think it should be limited to 45% for those earning many millions of pounds a year.

Ps. Millions of people are forfeiting part of their salary throughout the country! 

Evidence for this? I am not aware of millions voluntarily forfeiting their salary. I know that some have lost jobs and that it would, of course, been many times worse if the govt had adopted the economic policies that you support.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Nigel that is a decent idea. Another idea would be for the government to exclude certain industries. For example they could turn all football over to the Football Association and say sort it with no furloughing.

That would serve no great purpose unless they particularly hated football people. Surely anything fair would apply to everybody.

I'm glad you aren't in the government.

You aren't are you ....

😮😦😧

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have some reservations slightly on a moralistic front but in terms of looking after the club I support and love, I'm more than happy with the guys in charge and the decisions they're making 

Share this post


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

.

Well you've added the word "voluntary" to suit your agenda. 

But most people furloughed have taken a salary cut, thousands of club customers included.

As sgncfc pointed out, the percent cut required by players and execs to cover what we'll claim for the first 6-9 weeks of furlough is so small that it would have at least have shown solidarity with the millions of members of the public who are on 80 percent of their usual salary, or even less if £2500 doesn't equate to 80 percent. 

Its cringeworthy seeing you put so much effort into defending these millionaires who think donating less than 0.3 percent of their annual salary to the NHS cuts the mustard. 

You are defending the indefensible, and misjudging the national mood. The stock of footballers will never be lower than it will be after this dies down and the reality of deep economic depression and austerity sinks in. 

I'm a Tory having to explain solidarity to a supposed leftie, you really couldn't make this up!  

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


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

I have some reservations slightly on a moralistic front but in terms of looking after the club I support and love, I'm more than happy with the guys in charge and the decisions they're making 

Well yes. The guys in charge are looking after the club and themselves very well.

Or, to put it another way, those in charge are looking after themselves very well and the taxpayer is helping look after  the club.

Some people might say that those that have benefitted most from the club should look after it now as the tax payer might just have other things to worry about.

Either way the club is being looked after, if this is the priority then its job done!

Edited by Barbe bleu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I have some reservations slightly on a moralistic front but in terms of looking after the club I support and love, I'm more than happy with the guys in charge and the decisions they're making 

In other words, you don't actually give much of a sh*t at all about the lack of morality. 

 

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

×
×
  • Create New...