Yes and no but mostly no. FFP states that there's a maximum loss a club can make with owners being allowed to cover a proportion of that loss through an equity injection. UEFA have already said they'll be relaxing elements of FFP because of the current situation however there's nothing preventing owners from providing interest free loans to their clubs to cover cash flow issues.
Football and the Coronavirus
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,010
- Location
- Surrey
Looks like United players are going to be donating 30% of their wages to the NHS. I imagine more of this will follow.
Sums it up.
"Julian Knight, who is chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee, Knight has written to Premier League chief executive Richard Masters calling for action on player wages, saying clubs which furlough non-playing staff but do not impose cuts on player wages should be subjected to a windfall tax if they do not change approach by Tuesday, 7 April.
"The purpose of the coronavirus job retention scheme is not to support the economics of Premier League clubs," Knight wrote."
"Julian Knight, who is chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee, Knight has written to Premier League chief executive Richard Masters calling for action on player wages, saying clubs which furlough non-playing staff but do not impose cuts on player wages should be subjected to a windfall tax if they do not change approach by Tuesday, 7 April.
"The purpose of the coronavirus job retention scheme is not to support the economics of Premier League clubs," Knight wrote."
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,314
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
This is still not right as we have played Liverpool twice and Chelsea haven't. We have beaten Chelsea all three times this season and have a better goal difference. I would honestly be mega peeved if they got a champs place instead of us as we were on a mega roll before everything shut down.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,119
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,119
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
That is why maybe the best solution is to void the season and start again?
It's not perfect obviously but it would be the fairest way of doing things if games cannot be played. Also you are contradicting yourself slightly when you've said Utd have played all the big sides but also pointed out how you've beat Chelsea (and City) both times in the League. If Utd have played all those big games, generally performed well and are still below Chelsea then clearly you haven't been disadvantaged by the calendar as Utd have struggled to pick up points vs sides lower in the table. Being on a good/bad run of form doesn't count for more than the entire 28/29 games that have been played as a whole.
Anyway, it's looking more and more likely that Leagues will be finished somehow. UEFA are indirectly telling Leagues that end their season early, even if they don't actually void it, that they risk not being able to enter sides into the CL and EL next season.
I know, I said that
Following the story about Utd players donating pay to the NHS, the Times are reporting that Jordan Henderson has been organising a PL wide crisis fund for the NHS and that this pre-dates Levy and Hancock's ****head comments:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ier-league-coronavirus-fund-for-nhs-jlh53t7dp
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ier-league-coronavirus-fund-for-nhs-jlh53t7dp
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,119
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
I cant view the whole article unless i am a member or subscribed to it
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,314
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Good anything to make Levy and Ashley look like knobs. Feel sorry for their fans.
That's the first half of the article. If you pay me 50p towards the cost of my subscription then I'll post the rest.
I'm not sure you can cherry pick and apply arbitrary rules to some businesses based on them being visible or players being seen to ear "a lot" etc...
I'm sure there are plenty of business/companies in various industries making their own decisions re: furlough of staff that might be more in line with the interests of senior management or owners (if largely controlled by individual or small number of owners) etc..
Most of this is emotive - players earn huge sums etc.. and are visible so people want to see them lose out etc... but be careful about going along with them being scapegoats. How willing are the clubs going to be to break the contracts these players have from both sides?
I'm not an expert here but aren't these players "assets" to some extent - don't they still get bought/sold - if they want to move then other clubs still have to "buy" them if they're still within their contract etc.. (pls correct/educate if I've got some of this wrong)
The players have agents relying on them, PAs etc.. they're not so much "employees" but rather smaller businesses contracted to a much larger one. The job of paying the actual employees/staff is down to the big company.
Now you can say that there is some collective responsibility needed in these times - and that's fair, but that shouldn't need be one sided... if players are to take a hit/absorb some of the costs on their side of the contract/deal they're on then surely that works both ways... not quite as simple or emotive as it seems - how willing are the clubs themselves to give up some of the optionality they have on these players? Are the clubs willing to shorten the duration of contracts or compensate later etc.. (if that is how it works? please do correct me if I'm out of date/wrong on these players having a value as assets which need to be bought/sold etc..)... surely the club (very big company sometimes owned by very rich individual) needs to take a hit too...
I think the charity move by players is right approach at the moment and really, collectively, they ought to be pushing back re: the clubs re: the clubs giving up some value too re: any contracts being broken - if they expect one party to a contract to take a financial hit for the greater good then what are they prepared to give up on their side too?
I'm happy to pay taxes that support people who cannot live without that money, their own basic wage. I'm not happy to pay taxes for staff that are furloughed while there are 'staff' taking home millions a month between them.
They is my whole argument, don't really care if anyone disagrees or agrees, regardless of that being football or a plane manufacturer.
They is my whole argument, don't really care if anyone disagrees or agrees, regardless of that being football or a plane manufacturer.
Hypothetical scenario. Your boss is a multi billionaire and his business is making hundreds of millions in cash profits each year. You're a manager earning £50k per year and there are those working below you earning £15k per year. Your boss decides to furlough all those working below you but because you're considered vital to the business your boss continues to pay you in full. Who should we be angry at, the highly paid employee that continues to get paid in full and paying his taxes in full or the billionaire owner who is making hundreds of millions per year sat in a deck chair smoking his cigars?
Hypothetical scenario. The MD of a company who has 600 employees, and makes £8 billion a year is stuck with a decision to make, his top 20 executives can't do any work, as they are stuck at home on their backsides, should he pay them all the full wage at £1 million a month each and make the tax payer take the burden for the other 580 who earn £15k per year and will only get 80% of their meagre £15k, or should he cut the executives wage by 5% which would be enough to pay for the whole 580 other staff ? Who should you be angry at, the MD for thinking about a fair decision even though he still makes a packet and doesn't care, or looking after those that can afford to take a tiny hit, and keeping those that can't on full pay and not 'forcing' every single member of the public subsidise them?
Oh yeah, in my scenario it's a symbiotic relationship and no work can be carried out by anyone without the others.
Oh yeah, in my scenario it's a symbiotic relationship and no work can be carried out by anyone without the others.
Aren't we working on the boss at the top is evil scenario, and anything they do is wrong? Sorry, I'll changes it to 'makes a packet instead', does that help?
I'm working on the misplaced rage scenario. This situation started when the Chairman of Tottenham decided to openly call out players and insist they play their part while furloughing staff to protect his own wealth and has been jumped on by Matt Hancock. Daniel Levy is a shameless hypocrite. He's earned millions from Tottenham and is now quite possibly a billionaire himself on the back of his stake in Spurs, with his senior partner in ENIC (who own Spurs) being a multi billionaire tax exile.
The decision to furlough non playing staff at Spurs has already been taken and now Levy wants Spurs players to cut their pay too. Who is going to benefit from this pay cut? Tottenham can afford to pay all their players and non playing staff in full, even in this current crisis. They are owned by billionaires who could top up any short fall even if they couldn't. Nobody other than Joe Lewis and Daniel Levy benefit from Spurs players taking a pay cut. Are the 'evil owners' going to reverse their decision to furlough staff and repay the government if a player takes a pay cut? I doubt it. There will be less tax being paid by players but Tottenham's finances and Levy & Lewis' by extension will be protected. Why are people attacking players in this scenario? It's the likes of Levy and Mike Ashley at Newcastle that should be getting attacked.
There are some PL clubs not so well off nor owned by the super rich and if these clubs cannot afford to continue paying their staff in full then yes, players do have a responsibility to help.
edit: Just to add to the Spurs situation a bit more. As I've said multiple times, Levy paid himself a £3m bonus (on top of his £4m salary (which is already more than any other PL director)) for completing Spurs stadium, despite being late and over budget. That £3m bonus alone would probably cover most if not all of the 550 non playing staff pay in full for 3 months.
How hard is it to understand.
I don't care if the furlough staff, as long as it is a level playing field and they are all treated equally (expect the owner of course who cannot be forced to do anything they don't want to). If they furlough normal staff, then furlough the players then they'll have something to complain about on £2.5k per month.
There is zero misplaced rage as you put it.
"All employees are equal except some are more equal than others!"
I don't care if the furlough staff, as long as it is a level playing field and they are all treated equally (expect the owner of course who cannot be forced to do anything they don't want to). If they furlough normal staff, then furlough the players then they'll have something to complain about on £2.5k per month.
There is zero misplaced rage as you put it.
"All employees are equal except some are more equal than others!"