You are entitled to whatever your contract says you are entitled to. Legally speaking I would be surprised if clubs could forcefully reduce players wages but anyone earning £10,000+ A WEEK should be offering to reduce their salary if it means people don't have to lose their jobs. We know that most won't do that though. Its like the rich people claiming they should be taxed more. You can always pay more tax if you want or you can give your money away. Funny how most of these people don't.
Football and the Coronavirus
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
You are entitled to whatever your contract says you are entitled to. Legally speaking I would be surprised if clubs could forcefully reduce players wages but anyone earning £10,000+ A WEEK should be offering to reduce their salary if it means people don't have to lose their jobs. We know that most won't do that though. Its like the rich people claiming they should be taxed more. You can always pay more tax if you want or you can give your money away. Funny how most of these people don't.
Earning is a strong word for someone that kicks a ball around and does a bit of running around. I'd say they are given a wage, it most certainly isn't earned regardless of how 'skilled' they are giving them more than a week than a NHS nurse earns a year is utterly disgusting.
I say put it to the people who support the clubs by buying tickets and Sky subscriptions - Ask "If we force a wage drop for the players and they chose to leave they can, do you object?" I know for one I'd rather have 1+ less a-hole playing who earns multi-millions a year, it would show the true colours of what they are really about, money or the actual game itself.
@Journey If you want to start a separate thread to discuss the rights and wrongs of the state of football, it's commercialisation and whether players should earn more than nurses then feel free to do so. This thread is for discussing the realities of the current situation and the realistic consequences and changes we will see.
Erm... check the second paragraph... I specifically mentioned what they should do.
"I say put it to the people who support the clubs by buying tickets and Sky subscriptions - Ask "If we force a wage drop for the players and they chose to leave they can, do you object?" I know for one I'd rather have 1+ less a-hole playing who earns multi-millions a year, it would show the true colours of what they are really about, money or the actual game itself."
There was an UEFA meeting today. It's been decided that all International matches for June have been postponed indefinitely as have the start of the 20/21 Champions League and Europa League.
The Dutch FA did make an announcement stating that UEFA set a date of August 3rd for domestic Leagues to be completed but this has been clarified by UEFA, stating that this is one date that is now being looked at, other dates being earlier and they're even planning for the possibility of not restarting the season until August.
The Dutch FA did make an announcement stating that UEFA set a date of August 3rd for domestic Leagues to be completed but this has been clarified by UEFA, stating that this is one date that is now being looked at, other dates being earlier and they're even planning for the possibility of not restarting the season until August.
And I said realistic. Just because you and many others think players should take a wage cut, that won't change the decisions made by clubs. Football is a multi billion pound business and at the top level players are assets worth tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds. Clubs will not risk losing those assets because Journey on overclockers thinks they shouldn't earn as much as a nurse.
Last edited:
Seriously? Why are you trying to cause an argument?
As you said, in "the realities of the current situation" what is wrong with my suggestion? You agree that the players should get the full wages, and we as tax payers should be paying to furlough the staff that run the place?
Less twisting my words and paragraphs and actually answer the question. I asked a question after making a statement, so try to not get them mixed up.
I'm not trying to cause an argument and have given you free reign to start a thread on your idealistic plans for how football should be. Just because you, me and 99.9% of footall fans and the general public think millionaire players should take a pay cut, that won't change the decisions clubs are making. This isn't a new arguement, "footballers earning too much" has been a thing for decades and they're earning more and more.Seriously? Why are you trying to cause an argument?
As you said, in "the realities of the current situation" what is wrong with my suggestion? You agree that the players should get the full wages, and we as tax payers should be paying to furlough the staff that run the place?
Less twisting my words and paragraphs and actually answer the question. I asked a question after making a statement, so try to not get them mixed up.
So what's wrong with your suggestion? It will change nothing. No football club is going to break the terms of a players contract because you or me want them to, certainly not at the top end of football where players have significant transfer values. Football clubs are and will continue to negotiate with players and the PFA to get players to agree to wage cuts, or more likely deferrals.
If you're going to post realistic suggestions then feel free to continue posting in this thread. If you're going to discuss clubs furloughing non playing staff while continuing to pay players and directors millions of pounds then you can post in here. If it's just going to be generic "footballers are paid too much.....", "footballers don't earn their wages....." etc then you can start a new thread on that. A number of your posts have just been general complaints about money in football - that's not a new thing or specific to this situation so if you want to discuss it then you can in another thread.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,314
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
What ever little doubt I had that Mike Ashley is a horrible person has been completely wiped away.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 13,253
- Location
- London
I guess in these situations this is when you see the horrible greedy side of top tier football, as much as I enjoy watching premier league football I couldn't care less if it never returned.
I'm not saying all players/managers are the same, take Eddie Howe for example who recently took a pay cut.
But then you look at a club like spurs and the owner who doesn't seem to care much for the backroom staff giving them pay cuts and the players still earning full wage, think Newcastle and Norwich have also put there staff on furlough.
I'm not saying all players/managers are the same, take Eddie Howe for example who recently took a pay cut.
But then you look at a club like spurs and the owner who doesn't seem to care much for the backroom staff giving them pay cuts and the players still earning full wage, think Newcastle and Norwich have also put there staff on furlough.
Last edited:
The Belgium league have ended their season with the current standings being used to decide the Champions and European spots. No decision on promotion/relegation has yet been made however it appears like they'll promote 2 sides (not sure if that's standard) and have no relegations. I guess without huge tv contracts it's an easier decision for them to make as opposed to the major European leagues but it does set a precedent for how League's could be decided if play cannot resume - reportedly this has been guided by UEFA with them indicating that voiding Leagues could result in no CL/EL slots for those Leagues.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
I agree that at clubs where staff have been furloughed to keep costs down the players should be taking a pay cut as well. I'd feel a bit morally bankrupt if I was a PL player still drawing a full wage while staff at the club I play for have been furloughed. The problem is that unless there's a force majeure clause in player's contracts there's legally not a lot the clubs can do. Barca's players have voluntarily taken a 70% temporary pay cut to help the club, but that wasn't enforced by the club, that was something the squad decided to do in an effort to safeguard the long term outlook for the club and protect the club staff from financial problems.
It's the fairest way to do it. As I've said previously, once you're this far into the season you can't just tell teams that everything they've achieved has been a waste of time, which is essentially what null and voiding the season would be doing. You'd be rewarding clubs who have been rubbish this season but were good last season (e.g. Spurs) while punishing teams who have upped their level (e.g. Leicester).
It's the fairest way to do it. As I've said previously, once you're this far into the season you can't just tell teams that everything they've achieved has been a waste of time, which is essentially what null and voiding the season would be doing. You'd be rewarding clubs who have been rubbish this season but were good last season (e.g. Spurs) while punishing teams who have upped their level (e.g. Leicester).
Just looking at the PL table, there isn't too much of an issue with deciding European qualification if the season can't be finished. Liverpool, City and Chelsea would all qualify for the CL whether you went on current standings or last seasons table and similarly both Utd and Wolves would be in the Europa. It's only Leicester/Spurs for the CL and Sheffield Utd/Arsenal for the EL that are up for grabs. Given how far ahead Leicester are of Spurs it would be difficult to argue that Leicester didn't deserve that CL spot but the last Europa spot is a much closer call. It sounds like UEFA might be twisting Leagues' arms on that decision though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 3,875
Yeah, the standings aren't drastically different to last year. It'll be interesting to see if City's CL ban is upheld. I presume if it comes to it CAS will be able to hear the appeal via video conference, if they can't then I've no idea what happens in that scenario, though I did read several newspaper reports that say that the majority of the PL top ten are demanding that City's ban be enforced if an appeal isn't possible.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,010
- Location
- Surrey
Anything other than finishing the season when we can is dumb and incredibly unfair on a lot of teams both in terms of continental qualification and promotion/relegation. Using 'current tables' fails to take into account relative difficulty of fixture lists. The only sensible decision is to finish this season completely before deciding what to do about next season. Personally I'd favor just taking a year break from the domestic cups next season and hopefully that gives enough time to fit in the league. Obviously we'll have to see what happens wrt the world though.
It's certainly a very difficult decision, logically the best thing to do is try and finish it at all costs, but there may come a time where that isn't feasible. Fans attending is likely out of the question for most of 2020.
I don't think you can rule anything out at the moment, whether it's:
Regardless, it's ruined the season whatever happens, injured players will be able to recover where they normally couldn't have, which will impact results, etc etc.
I don't think you can rule anything out at the moment, whether it's:
- Ending the season now and using the current standings (would certainly open up major legal challenges, but then that's inevitable whatever happens)
- Voiding the season and reverting to the 2018-19 results with no winners/relegations
- An indefinite delay to try and finish all the fixtures when possible
Regardless, it's ruined the season whatever happens, injured players will be able to recover where they normally couldn't have, which will impact results, etc etc.
There will be lots of different variations between ending this season 'as things stand' and voiding the season, in fact I don't think either extreme has much chance of happening. The legal challenges that either will throw up will make it too expensive and too complicated. If the season can't be finished then what's happened in Belgium and previously happened in Chile appears the most likely outcome - League positions determined by ppg or the current standings but with no relegations and only promotions. It won't be challenge free but would be far easier to justify than denying Leeds promotion, relegating Villa or denying Leicester a place in the CL.
They're going to do all they can to finish this season but ultimately money will determine whether this season can be finished or not. This season and the 20/21 season have to be finished in time for the Euros next summer. You can ditch winter breaks, domestic cups, international friendlies and even tweak next seasons CL (maybe making it a straight knockout competition) to create as much time as possible to fit in domestic leagues and UEFA comps but as soon as you start eating into League/CL games then a decision has to be made regarding what's worth more, this season or next season.
They're going to do all they can to finish this season but ultimately money will determine whether this season can be finished or not. This season and the 20/21 season have to be finished in time for the Euros next summer. You can ditch winter breaks, domestic cups, international friendlies and even tweak next seasons CL (maybe making it a straight knockout competition) to create as much time as possible to fit in domestic leagues and UEFA comps but as soon as you start eating into League/CL games then a decision has to be made regarding what's worth more, this season or next season.
I think PPG will have to come into it. They cant void a season this far in.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,117
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
its up to the players if they want to contrubute