1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Football and the Coronavirus

Discussion in 'The Football Stadium' started by Robbo, Mar 11, 2020.

  1. Journey

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,280

    Location: West Midlands

    This was my argument, if they can't afford to keep the non-playing staff on normal wages, then they 100% cannot afford the players to be on a full wage. Any club that chooses to furlough non-playing staff needs to be forced to pay the full amount back to the government as a minimum once playing resumes.

    The old argument that the 'big bosses/owners' are the ones to be mad at, but if it wasn't for the billionaires owners, players wouldn't be receiving obscene amounts of money, since they started the trend of offering massive amounts of money to build the best squads and try and buy titles etc.
     
  2. BaZ87

    Don

    Joined: Jun 9, 2004

    Posts: 37,882

    I'm sorry but I don't buy this at all. Alder Hey Children's Hospital announced that they received a large donation from a footballer who specifically asked to remain anonymous. The initiative that PL players are working on now only came to light following the attacks on footballers and was reportedly being worked on for several days prior.

    Footballers are no different to anybody else. Some will be greedy arseholes but the majority won't. I've never understood why footballers are always a target and yet actors, musicians, tv presenters, bankers and politicians don't receive 10% of the abuse, despite in many cases doing far less work for their money.

    Who does this benefit? Billionaire club owners.
    Players are already donating money to the NHS and other causes. They're now trying to agree and put together formal fund across the whole of the PL. With squads at each club not together to discuss these things, let alone to then reach an agreement between 20 different clubs, it's not something that will happen overnight. You have to remember that how much different players earn will vary massively and that will be the case at one club let alone between the highest paid players at Liverpool, Utd and City and the lowest paid players at Norwich & Burnley. For example Liverpool have a wage structure where 1st year pros earn a maximum (in most cases less) of £50k per year basic pay with big bonuses for inclusion in matchday squads etc. Agreeing a wage cut or donation to a charity that's fair for everybody when you'll have players possibly earning as little as £20k per year and others earning £200k per week isn't easy.

    And on your point about paying non playing staff, one of the issues raised by the PFA is that players want assurances that any cut to their wages will be going towards paying these people and not simply to save a few quid for clubs/owners that can afford to pay them anyway.
     
  3. BaZ87

    Don

    Joined: Jun 9, 2004

    Posts: 37,882

    Player wages have nothing to do with billionaire owners. In the vast majority of cases, all but a handful of clubs across Europe in fact, huge wages are a direct result of huge revenue clubs generate, not rich owners.

    Suggestions of furloughing players, at PL clubs, is simply mad. Using Liverpool as an example. Worst case scenario and this season is not finished then Liverpool will lose around £100m in revenue. Of that £100m around 20-30% will be offset by reduced costs resulting in a bottom line hit of £70-80m. Now the likelyhood is this won't happen and the club will only lose £10-15m but anyway. Last season Liverpool had an EBITDA (basically cash profit) of around £130m and this season I'd have guessed would have been over £150m had there been no issues. So even if the **** hit the fan, the season wasn't finished and Liverpool lost £80m odd, they would have still made a cash profit of around £70m even paying their staff in full.

    If Liverpool took the decision to furlough all their staff and players for 3 months, resulting in a reduction in their wagebill of around £75m, they would have made a cash profit of around £150m. Players would have been paid less, around £30m less would have been paid in tax to go towards the NHS but Liverpool football club and it's owners would have made exactly the same profits as if the season was uneffected.
     
  4. The_One

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 27, 2003

    Posts: 10,992


    Cant furlough players on 80% its up to a maximum of £2500 :p:p
     
  5. Journey

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,280

    Location: West Midlands

    I disagree, see the excerpt from an article about Roman Abromovich

    "But it is for his investment in Chelsea that he is best known around the globe. His care free attitude to spending – including £2 billion in his first 10 years – transformed the game, terrifying other top clubs who could not compete. Being a millionaire was no longer enough. Only a member of the Billionaires Club could compete."

    "Ken Bates had dragged the club into the modern era after buying it for £1 in the early 1980s. But by 2003, the club had a huge amount of debt and was struggling to meet a $23 million interest payment. Enter Abramovich, who – according to then Chelsea CEO Trevor Birch – concluded the deal in just 15 minutes."

    Tell me with a straight face, that Chelsea has generated £2 billion in profit in those first 10 years, and none of the owners money affected the club, or other clubs being bought up.

    Quoting myself, if they can't afford to pay the staff, then they need to be come down heavy on, my suggestion is letting them off lightly.


    I'll give you a hint, football is not celebrated by everyone. I'll give you some choices, tell me what you'd prefer.
    • You can either have music, or football - which ever you chose one you can never experience the other.
    • You can either have films, or football - which ever you chose one you can never experience the other.
    • You can either have TV programmes or football - which ever you chose one you can never experience the other.
    Most people don't care about professional football, but they do care about the others in one form or another, so when people who would rather go an see a Beethoven piano concerto with a struggling orchestra who can't get £200k funding for an entire year, and then see someone earning £300k per week for kicking a ball, and doing some exercise they get annoyed. It's called freedom of expression, an people will always be more annoyed about something they don't care about of doesn't affect them. As for bankers and politicians, they get a decent amount of abuse and I agree they get paid way too much.
     
  6. BaZ87

    Don

    Joined: Jun 9, 2004

    Posts: 37,882

    If you quoted me fully you will see that I said there's only a handful of clubs across Europe that rely on their owners. Chelsea being one. All their players would be earning the same or similar at other clubs who aren't backed by a mob boss or Arab state though so your argument that billionaires are the reason for these inflated wages is not true. The vast majority of clubs are self funded and you can remove these Abramovic/ Abu Dhabi owners and overall pages in football would go pretty much unchanged. Your arugment was simply wrong.


    How are you deciding that most people don't care about football but do care about all the various actors, musicians, tv presenters, bankers and politicians?

    I would have football over all the others combined. And why not draw a fair comparison rather than the highest paid footballers vs the lowest paid musicians. Why not flip that and talk about the lower league footballers/clubs that are going out of business and compare it to Simon Cowell?
     
  7. Lord-Jaffa

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 29, 2004

    Posts: 6,075

    Exactly my point, whats wrong with that option.
     
  8. BaZ87

    Don

    Joined: Jun 9, 2004

    Posts: 37,882

    Other than the tax payer having to pay that £2,500 per month and a total of lost taxes of around £300m?
     
  9. Lord-Jaffa

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 29, 2004

    Posts: 6,075

    And? They are shaking the money tree and the financial fallout will be crippling, what does it even matter anymore
     
  10. Journey

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,280

    Location: West Midlands

    This is where I end bothering replying to you. If you'd rather lose all music, films and any type of TV over football then in your eyes football can do no wrong and is worth more than almost anything in the world.

    It was nice conversing with you, enjoy your football. :)
     
  11. BaZ87

    Don

    Joined: Jun 9, 2004

    Posts: 37,882

    In that case why limit it to £2500 per month. Maybe they should be handing out £10k per month to everybody.
    Many thanks. It was obvious from your first posts that you were only here to complain about professional football which is why I asked you to start a separate thread for that. You're posting in a football subforum with the vast majority of posters being big football fans, who pay significant amounts of money each year (dare I say more than they do to listen to music or watch movies & other tv) to watch football, your arguments were likely to fall on deaf ears.
     
  12. The_One

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 27, 2003

    Posts: 10,992

    F

    Football players also have mortgages to pay you know
     
  13. Lord-Jaffa

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 29, 2004

    Posts: 6,075

    Because that amounts to roughly the average wage? It's obscene to defend their wages sitting at home doing nothing, while others are put on furlough, or losing their jobs/businesses, you're as bad as Rooney claiming 30% reduction would put some of them into financial ruin LOL, so what, welcome to reality.
     
  14. Lord-Jaffa

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 29, 2004

    Posts: 6,075

    So? Go on a mortgage holiday, like everyone else is being forced to do, what kind of nonsense excuses are these.
     
  15. The_One

    Capodecina

    Joined: Dec 27, 2003

    Posts: 10,992

    Facepalm :rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  16. BaZ87

    Don

    Joined: Jun 9, 2004

    Posts: 37,882

    It's not a case of defending their wages. It's a practical point. Putting PL footballers on furlough will only have a negative impact on the tax payer and the country as a whole. The only people that will benefit from this decision are the super rich football clubs and club owners.
     
  17. Lord-Jaffa

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 29, 2004

    Posts: 6,075

    LOL that is your reply? Why should a footballer have special consideration over any other single person? If you can't engage with an actual response then don't bother replying at all.
     
  18. BaZ87

    Don

    Joined: Jun 9, 2004

    Posts: 37,882

    No business, football club or otherwise, should furlough their staff if they can afford not to. That should answer you.
     
  19. Journey

    Soldato

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,280

    Location: West Midlands

    Ah but which offshore company that the use to buy property do they have the mortgage with? Do they even own it or does 'Giles Smith Ltd'
    own it on their behalf? When you get paid so much you employ professionals to find the best ways to avoid paying tax regardless of what you do for a job.
     
  20. nicktay2605

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 22, 2007

    Posts: 3,762

    I really think wage cuts is something that should be discussed on a club-by-club basis. For clubs like Chelsea and City the lost revenue is a drop in the ocean, whereas smaller teams like Norwich, Burnley and Bournemouth could probably really do with that money. Those PL clubs that really need the money should be sitting down with their players to negotiate some kind of reduced wage or wage deferral, and no PL club should be putting non-playing staff on furlough. As Baz said, if clubs are having to furlough non-playing staff then they are in a much more severe financial position than any of us would imagine.

    Also, as some have pointed out, the focus on footballers rather than all wealthy individuals seems a bit strange. If they really want to help then the government should be temporarily increasing taxes on people who earn over 'x' amount and then using that additional tax money to help the NHS.