MrsHall Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 22 hours ago, @owlstalk said: Just had a read through the Fans Forum thread. That was one craaaaaazy night at Hillsborough Amongst the other things up for discussion that night was Please sack Jos Luhukay (chansiri said he wasn't going to sack him etc) Why is Westwood not playing? Is it down to a contract thing? (Chansiri denied any contractual reason) Where is Sam Hutchinson? Why is he not playing? (Chansiri replied he didn't know why Sam wasn't playing) Some mad stuff in a classic thread Was excellent....a live demonstration of chaos theory. UTO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 22 hours ago, Grandad said: He said it didn't cover anything I'd like to see you answer the same question in Thai and even if you could speak it, ensure that you captured any nuance of language that your answer might cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowl Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 I can't see players who's contracts are upm in the summer agreeing to a reduction in wages. The ones who wait might. Most of the reports I read (a few days ago) were talking about deferrals not reductions. That means they will still get the money at a later date. If that has changed I've missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 7 hours 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 How would you feel if someone told you your salary was going to be reduced by 63% instead then. Have you never said something in the heat of the moment that was an exaggeration when trying to make a point? The fact is our payments as fans cover 37% which leaves the owner needing to find a further 63%. Mistakes have been made in this sense by him in terms of salaries and not selling players but this quote was well over a year ago. All he can do is improve on the mistakes that have been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 9 hours ago, Grandad said: 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? Wind your neck in? OK mate! I didn't say it was irrelevant and as I say I don't think he meant it that way either but said it in the heat of the moment to make a point about it not covering much in terms of overall costs. Nice to see you carry on pulling him up on a comment he made at a forum well over a year ago, a forum that you have complete disregard for but hold to account when the comment suits what you want to say. I can't imagine you have ever made heat of the moment exaggerated comments that aren't accurate ever eh Grandad, not so much that you have felt the need to take time out from posting and change your username numerous times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 Para 1. You didn't say it was irrelevant, HE did. Do try to keep up Para 2. What in God's name are you talking about?? Para 3. Q1. If our contribution is so irrelevant to our oner why is everything we buy the most expensive in the division? You've still not answered that Q2. Do you really think it's wise to tell our fans they don't matter to the club? Financially? Q3. Do you get really over excited and spit and drool a little bit when you're engaging with me? That's how your posts come across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 23 minutes ago, Grandad said: Para 1. You didn't say it was irrelevant, HE did. Do try to keep up Para 2. What in God's name are you talking about?? Para 3. Q1. If our contribution is so irrelevant to our oner why is everything we buy the most expensive in the division? You've still not answered that Q2. Do you really think it's wise to tell our fans they don't matter to the club? Financially? Q3. Do you get really over excited and spit and drool a little bit when you're engaging with me? That's how your posts come across. Q1. I've said previously that his comments were heat of the moment and he probably didn't mean 'everything'. At the risk of repeating myself, have you never exaggerated a comment in the heat of a debate when trying to make a point? I certainly don't agree with many aspects of our pricing structure. Q2. No, I don't think it is wise at all. The comment was over a year ago, hopefully he has learnt from this. Q3. No surprise to see that you think your posts above all others get me over excited, you really do have a high opinion of yourself don't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 I'd imagine that if our players took a 20% reduction in salary it would be enough to pay 100% of the salaries of the staff who have been furloughed Rather than the club shift the cost to the taxpayer. How about it Wednesday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torryowl Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, Grandad said: I'd imagine that if our players took a 20% reduction in salary it would be enough to pay 100% of the salaries of the staff who have been furloughed Rather than the club shift the cost to the taxpayer. How about it Wednesday? players helping out the there work colleagues I can understand but relieving the burden on the taxman after what he takes off them is a different matter . ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, torryowl said: players helping out the there work colleagues I can understand but relieving the burden on the taxman after what he takes off them is a different matter . ... It should be seen as relieving the burden on the taxpayer. All of us mugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsheri Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 (edited) I'd give up some of my salary if it meant one of our cleaners got the full pittance of a salary she gets. Be glad to. In fact I've offered. Would cost me about £600 over 3 months. You read that our players have put in £20k to a fund?... What is the weekly wage of our first team squad of 18? 3? 4 hundred grand? Pathetic Edited April 1, 2020 by sweetsheri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJMortimer Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 11 hours ago, OxonOwl said: 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. David Conn pointed out a few years ago that every single time a Football League club went into administration, the voluntary service of St John Ambulance was on the list of those forced to accept a small percentage in settlement. On the other hand, the players are 100% protected creditors. No matter what, they are legally entitled to the full extent of their agreed contracts. Capitalism in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted April 1, 2020 Author Share Posted April 1, 2020 7 minutes ago, Grandad said: It should be seen as relieving the burden on the taxpayer. All of us mugs Could the first time the supporters have paid the players twice in one season Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsheri Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, @owlstalk said: Could the first time the supporters have paid the players twice in one season Taking getting value for money to the extreme of outer space that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 5 minutes ago, sweetsheri said: I'd give up some of my salary if it meant one of our cleaners got the full pittance of a salary she gets. Be glad to. In fact I've offered. Would cost me about £600 over 3 months. You read that our players have put in £20k to a fund?... What is the weekly wage of our first team squad of 18? 3? 4 hundred grand? Pathetic Exactly I once worked at a company that needed to lay off a member of its sales team. The other members of the sales team all agreed to reduce their basic pay sufficiently to pay the salary of the person being laid off - so they could stay What I've suggested might only last 3 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetsheri Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Grandad said: Exactly I once worked at a company that needed to lay off a member of its sales team. The other members of the sales team all agreed to reduce their basic pay sufficiently to pay the salary of the person being laid off - so they could stay What I've suggested might only last 3 months Football isn't it Look at Spurs today. What's the weekly wage of that squad? £20m? And the club are taking taxpayers money to pay the cleaners and the like. Disgusting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@owlstalk Posted April 1, 2020 Author Share Posted April 1, 2020 44 minutes ago, Grandad said: I'd imagine that if our players took a 20% reduction in salary it would be enough to pay 100% of the salaries of the staff who have been furloughed Rather than the club shift the cost to the taxpayer. How about it Wednesday? Good idea Owlstalk Shop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, @owlstalk said: Good idea It is And how good would our club look if we pioneered it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sefton owl Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 On 31/03/2020 at 20:38, daleblue said: Should be paid 80% up to £2,500. Same as the rest of society. 100%. Footballers are a very easy target, and rightly so, however I think politicians should also be taking a look at themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torryowl Posted April 1, 2020 Share Posted April 1, 2020 5 minutes ago, DJMortimer said: David Conn pointed out a few years ago that every single time a Football League club went into administration, the voluntary service of St John Ambulance was on the list of those forced to accept a small percentage in settlement. On the other hand, the players are 100% protected creditors. No matter what, they are legally entitled to the full extent of their agreed contracts. Capitalism in action. the players union got them that deal way back when they were little more than slaves to capitalist owners …...so I wouldn't be blaming the players for turning the tables on there former owners … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now