Chansiri in discussions over player wage deferrals

[Sergeant Tibbs]

1 hour ago, oakleyrob said:

Food,drinks,shop,programmes,sponsors, boxes etc.?

 

Boxes

Sponsors

?

Just words associated with lost opportunities for revenue at our club 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Grandad said:

It's over a third, and in context nearly a half

 

Regardless, it was very fu cking dismissive and disrespectful at a time he was demanding we pay more

 

It was a comment made probably as an angry reaction in the heat of the moment. It probably shouldn't have been said but it was over a year ago but typical of you to jump on it now at a time when a thread has been made praising the actions DC has taken today. 

 

In what context is it nearly half?

[McRightSide]

People say he should learn from his mistakes, but seem to be unable to move on from them themselves.

 

 

[Sergeant Tibbs]

18 minutes ago, 31Dec1966 said:

Contracts are being broken everywhere in these unprecedented times. People accept the gravity of the situation. Why should footballers be different? 

Society has made them different.
Where else would somebody doing their day-day get to bite someone and end up with a pay rise...and be afforded hero stays on a regular basis. Then low and behold end up moving to one of the best cities in the world.

We’re no better, 3 months after our player refuses to work, rewarded with a pay rise.

[Harrysgame]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

I'm confused..

Remember at the fans forum where Chansiri told us that our ticket money was pretty much irrelevant when it comes to club income?

 

I think it is, but as we have the season ticket money upfront this would skew the figures. Think it means we are reliant on st sales. Next season would be an issue as many will not have renewed yet.

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

I'm confused..

Remember at the fans forum where Chansiri told us that our ticket money was pretty much irrelevant when it comes to club income?

 

I think what he tells supporters and what he tells the PFA will be completely different

 

It's got to be

 

He can't rock up to the PFA and say, don't worry guys, I'll cover the players wages

 

Same as a lot of clubs, we will always struggle with FFP until we get promoted

 

If all the other clubs are applying for wage reductions, we've got to do the same

[Guest mkowl]

29 minutes ago, 31Dec1966 said:

Contracts are being broken everywhere in these unprecedented times. People accept the gravity of the situation. Why should footballers be different? 

 

Those under contract have a re-sale value which would be lost if they could just walk away

 

They do not have to accept the furlough either, only other alternative would be making them redundant and then it would depend on the contract as to how much that would cost.

 

But yep football clubs that pay such high salaries to a few but then seek Govt cash for the minions is a bit obscene. 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

I think what he tells supporters and what he tells the PFA will be completely different

 

It's got to be

 

He can't rock up to the PFA and say, don't worry guys, I'll cover the players wages

 

Same as a lot of clubs, we will always struggle with FFP until we get promoted

 

If all the other clubs are applying for wage reductions, we've got to do the same

 

Like it or not this is the crux of the matter. With the PFA and EFL involved it is better that the clubs act as one at this initial stage and try to reach an informed agreement. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mkowl said:

 

Those under contract have a re-sale value which would be lost if they could just walk away

 

They do not have to accept the furlough either, only other alternative would be making them redundant and then it would depend on the contract as to how much that would cost.

 

But yep football clubs that pay such high salaries to a few but then seek Govt cash for the minions is a bit obscene. 

 

 

 

This will be the case across businesses but instead of footballers it will be highly paid directors and executives. 

 

We are a company that is already running at a loss, largely as a result of the player salaries but that is how it is, nobody expected to be in this situation. Many businesses with better bank balances and balance sheets than ours will be taking money from the Government. 

Premier League clubs that are turning over huge sums and in some cases profits are taking it up which in comparison with our situation is obscene I agree.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

It was a comment made probably as an angry reaction in the heat of the moment. It probably shouldn't have been said but it was over a year ago but typical of you to jump on it now at a time when a thread has been made praising the actions DC has taken today. 

 

In what context is it nearly half?

 

wind your neck in.
 

I raised it at the time he said it too - and asked the question "If our contribution is so irrelevant - why have we got the most expensive prices for everything?"

You could answer that?

[room0035]

I wonder what reaction up and down the country this will cause non playing staff at clubs are being told to go home on 80% of their wages - a lot of those clubs are paying the difference for now, but this could change in time, the playing staff who probably account for 90% of the wages costs at most clubs are being told don't worry you wont get paid you cash but you will in a few months time.

 

None playing staff getting paid a maximum of £37,500  (2,500 x 12 x 100/80) a year before tax but many are on a lot less than that, playing staff getting paid millions each year. 

 

As far as I know the rules of furloughing, is so staff who are unable to do their job are being supported by the government so they don't get made redundant. Can someone please explain to me how a footballer who is unable to do his job i.e. play football is not be treated in the same way as everyone else.

 

For me if one member of staff gets furlough, then every member of staff should be treated the same way. It would appear I am not the only one that is also asking the question why footballers are getting treated different to other staff.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52120578

 

 

[OxonOwl]

It'll be down to employment contracts and the wording of.

 

A players contract is for a fixed term and fixed payment and not dependent on them playing. As Abdi demonstrated.

 

Non-playing staff are salaried just like the majority of us.

Edited April 1, 2020 by OxonOwl

[poite]

15 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

I am sure it was just a turn of phrase said in response to a direct question. I take it you have never said 'nothing' when meaning something of relatively little value before or something of that ilk?

Relatively speaking 37% is not much of the whole is it?  

Love it when an unfavorable quote is used but then defended by 'it was a turn of phrase'. How convenient.

 

Relatively speaking 37% isn't much of the whole is it?

 

Well that depends what it relative to. If someone said to you that they were going to reduce your salary by 37% i can't see you saying it was ok cos it's not that much of the whole

[pazowl55]

1 hour ago, room0035 said:

I wonder what reaction up and down the country this will cause non playing staff at clubs are being told to go home on 80% of their wages - a lot of those clubs are paying the difference for now, but this could change in time, the playing staff who probably account for 90% of the wages costs at most clubs are being told don't worry you wont get paid you cash but you will in a few months time.

 

None playing staff getting paid a maximum of £37,500  (2,500 x 12 x 100/80) a year before tax but many are on a lot less than that, playing staff getting paid millions each year. 

 

As far as I know the rules of furloughing, is so staff who are unable to do their job are being supported by the government so they don't get made redundant. Can someone please explain to me how a footballer who is unable to do his job i.e. play football is not be treated in the same way as everyone else.

 

For me if one member of staff gets furlough, then every member of staff should be treated the same way. It would appear I am not the only one that is also asking the question why footballers are getting treated different to other staff.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52120578

 

 

I dont know for sure but I would guess that smaller clubs will be putting some of there players on furlough payments once they know what's happening because at the moment we are due to start again on the 30th April ain't we. Technically speaking I mean in reality we are not. 

But there wont be many footballers who only get around 2,500 a month. So it's hardly worth clubs even considering it for them.

[The Wall]

1 hour ago, poite said:

Love it when an unfavorable quote is used but then defended by 'it was a turn of phrase'. How convenient.

 

Relatively speaking 37% isn't much of the whole is it?

 

Well that depends what it relative to. If someone said to you that they were going to reduce your salary by 37% i can't see you saying it was ok cos it's not that much of the whole

 

I think we can all agree that reducing your salary by 63% would be worse.

 

Clearly the match day income, by definition pays for 'something', but it's obvious that DC was making the point that he pays for the majority. Yes, the wording was a little clumsy, but the point was quite clear to me

[room0035]

1 hour ago, pazowl55 said:

I dont know for sure but I would guess that smaller clubs will be putting some of there players on furlough payments once they know what's happening because at the moment we are due to start again on the 30th April ain't we. Technically speaking I mean in reality we are not. 

But there wont be many footballers who only get around 2,500 a month. So it's hardly worth clubs even considering it for them.

isn't that the point though all footballer should be treated as other staff they only get £2,500 + what the club pays towards their wages.

 

Why should they be treated differently because they are footballers.

[pazowl55]

44 minutes ago, room0035 said:

isn't that the point though all footballer should be treated as other staff they only get £2,500 + what the club pays towards their wages.

 

Why should they be treated differently because they are footballers.

It's there to protect jobs isnt it essentially.  Players have contracts so jobs are protected. Unless you are a small club and may go bust. So all the clubs that can afford it shouldnt be using it. And if you are earning 25k a week then they are giving them 2.5 % of there wages. So it isnt going to be accepted by them is it.

[room0035]

51 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

It's there to protect jobs isnt it essentially.  Players have contracts so jobs are protected. Unless you are a small club and may go bust. So all the clubs that can afford it shouldnt be using it. And if you are earning 25k a week then they are giving them 2.5 % of there wages. So it isnt going to be accepted by them is it.

So someone on a lesser wage can take it but because a footballer is paid a silly wage they continue to get paid it for not doing their jobs sat at home - that does not make any sense.

 

If a staff member is furlough because they cannot perform their job and the employer is struggling to pay them then it should be for all staff.

 

I know we have this excuse that football is not like any other business but why should none playing staff be affect and playing staff continues as they are.

 

I hope someone in the EFL and EPL grows a backbone and furloughs their players to the levels of everyone else. But I don't expect to happen, until the tv companies come asking for their money back for games that have not been played.

[pazowl55]

11 minutes ago, room0035 said:

So someone on a lesser wage can take it but because a footballer is paid a silly wage they continue to get paid it for not doing their jobs sat at home - that does not make any sense.

 

If a staff member is furlough because they cannot perform their job and the employer is struggling to pay them then it should be for all staff.

 

I know we have this excuse that football is not like any other business but why should none playing staff be affect and playing staff continues as they are.

 

I hope someone in the EFL and EPL grows a backbone and furloughs their players to the levels of everyone else. But I don't expect to happen, until the tv companies come asking for their money back for games that have not been played.

I fully understand what you are saying and agree with the sentiment that something should be done. But why should a footballer only be paid 2.5% of his wage while a normal worker gets 80% of theres. Its up to the clubs to sort this out and look after they own employers but reducing the wages of the top earning footballers to cover the costs of the club. But not as low as furlough pay status.

[room0035]

2 hours ago, The Wall said:

 

I think we can all agree that reducing your salary by 63% would be worse.

 

Clearly the match day income, by definition pays for 'something', but it's obvious that DC was making the point that he pays for the majority. Yes, the wording was a little clumsy, but the point was quite clear to me

Doesn't the account say that the income for the club mainly comes from two source the fans and the tv money the actual income of the club very little comes from the chairman.

 

He is the one paying the costs though which is different to the incomes.

 

from 2018 filed account

 

Match revenue                               18,129,000   (43% of wages)

Commercial activities                       7,105,000   (17% of wages)

Total                                                25,234,000

 

Wages and salaries                        42,408,000 (balance covered by DC 40% ) - This is on the assumption all club income goes to paying salaries.

Admin expenses                                1,716,000

Interest paid                                            73,000