The PFA's Response To The Coronavirus Crisis

[SiJ]

Taylor is/was a massive be11end. 

[torryowl]

31 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Of course the PFA need to look after those in the lower leagues and in general they have to do their best for their members but if they are taking a stance that no players should take a cut in earnings then that is a disgraceful approach.

What will they do without their average £63K per week? 

it is  a disgrace but they all belong to the same union and they all have to work to the same conditions whether they earn  60k or 600 a week ……..  if man city want to  cut there wages and  there members will accept it  then it stands to reason that if city  do it then Stevenage will want to cut theres and that's big problems for those on 600 a week …… 

[Whitechapel Owl]

27 minutes ago, torryowl said:

it is  a disgrace but they all belong to the same union and they all have to work to the same conditions whether they earn  60k or 600 a week ……..  if man city want to  cut there wages and  there members will accept it  then it stands to reason that if city  do it then Stevenage will want to cut theres and that's big problems for those on 600 a week …… 

 

But this is why the PFA are involved, it's not going to be a flat rate across all the divisions. I also understand the PFA when they say they want to look at the clubs finances because they want assurance the clubs aren't purely taking advantage of the situation. I doubt there's much call for Leagues One and Two to take cuts anyway, it's the top two divisions where it needs to happen. 

[scram]

I'd imagine there are many genuine cases of clubs in the bottom 2 divisions having to furlough players and staff

 

They are so reliant on their matchday income - it's difficult to see how clubs that live hand to mouth can survive without taking remedial action

[torryowl]

1 minute ago, Whitechapel Owl said:

 

But this is why the PFA are involved, it's not going to be a flat rate across all the divisions. I also understand the PFA when they say they want to look at the clubs finances because they want assurance the clubs aren't purely taking advantage of the situation. I doubt there's much call for Leagues One and Two to take cuts anyway, it's the top two divisions where it needs to happen. 

if the top clubs are allowed to cut there wages then it stands to reason that the poorer lower clubs will want to do the same …….it cant be fair that man city can cut there wage bill and Stevenage cant . this is why I think the union are taking the stance they are and I cant understand why they are copping some flak for protecting the lower paid players …

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

4 hours ago, torryowl said:

if the top clubs are allowed to cut there wages then it stands to reason that the poorer lower clubs will want to do the same …….it cant be fair that man city can cut there wage bill and Stevenage cant . this is why I think the union are taking the stance they are and I cant understand why they are copping some flak for protecting the lower paid players …

 

The fact that the Barcelona players have offered to take a 70% pay cut and make additional contributions to make sure non-sporting staff receive full wages hasn't led to calls for the likes of AD Alcorcón to do the same. Common sense dictates they have different circumstances and contexts.

 

Ultimately, if Premier League players are worried about their colleagues lower down the footballing pyramid, nothing's stopping them from offering to pool a percentage of their wages in order to help out. In fact, the PFA are probably best placed to arrange and oversee such an arrangement.

[torryowl]

3 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

The fact that the Barcelona players have offered to take a 70% pay cut and make additional contributions to make sure non-sporting staff receive full wages hasn't led to calls for the likes of AD Alcorcón to do the same. Common sense dictates they have different circumstances and contexts.

 

Ultimately, if Premier League players are worried about their colleagues lower down the footballing pyramid, nothing's stopping them from offering to pool a percentage of their wages in order to help out. In fact, the PFA are probably best placed to arrange and oversee such an arrangement.

Totally agree that the top players should forego there wages if they so wish that is down to individuals but that is different from the union saying to all clubs  rich and poorthat they agree that they can cut the wages of everyone ....I dont know if any players union on the continent have agreed to such a measure but I'd be surprised  if they have .

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

5 minutes ago, torryowl said:

Totally agree that the top players should forego there wages if they so wish that is down to individuals but that is different from the union saying to all clubs  rich and poorthat they agree that they can cut the wages of everyone ....I dont know if any players union on the continent have agreed to such a measure but I'd be surprised  if they have .

 

But the PFA's current stance is that all players must be paid in full.

 

That's what they're advising their members.

 

If they were to advise their wealthier members to pool a percentage of their wages to create a fund in order to ensure that no staff associated with clubs at lower levels of the game go without pay, and to ensure that all current clubs still exist to employ some of their colleagues once this is all over, then I could see an argument for them having the interests of the lower league players at heart.

 

As things stand, they're advising some very well-paid individuals to cover their ears, close their eyes, and let everyone else pick up the tab.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

Hopefully today's meeting will see sense finally prevail...

[torryowl]

32 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

But the PFA's current stance is that all players must be paid in full.

 

That's what they're advising their members.

 

If they were to advise their wealthier members to pool a percentage of their wages to create a fund in order to ensure that no staff associated with clubs at lower levels of the game go without pay, and to ensure that all current clubs still exist to employ some of their colleagues once this is all over, then I could see an argument for them having the interests of the lower league players at heart.

 

As things stand, they're advising some very well-paid individuals to cover their ears, close their eyes, and let everyone else pick up the tab.

That's a good suggestion but to do that the players would have to be paid in full so they could pass it on to union to distribute out to the lower paid .....now the big clubs dont seem keen to play there own players the full amount so what they'll think to there money paying the wages of the poor I cant imagine .

[owlinexile]

20 hours ago, Stoop said:

Rules are rules I suppose 

 

One thing is for sure, If I was a professional athlete, I wouldn’t be able to look at myself in the mirror if I was collecting upwards of £20k a week whilst the kit man and cleaning lady were getting  furloughed on 80% 

 

They are spoiled overgrown children who've never been denied anything in their lives.  I doubt a lot of them would even consider themselves in remotely the same situation as the kit man or cleaning lady. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

I was listening to a BBC podcast from earlier in the week and they were discussing the wage cuts players at some European clubs have made, and what a huge difference Premier League players could make if they did similar.

 

The average weekly wage for a Premier League first-team squad member is £61,024 a week, meaning that if they all agreed to a 50% pay cut between now and September, that would save more than 300 million pounds. The key of course is to ensure that this money gets to those who need it, whether that be lower league clubs in dire straits or other groups in wider society, which is where the PFA could step in.

 

Given that, if a single lower league club goes out of existence due to this crisis, the higher levels of the game should probably take a moment to reflect.

[PeteG_1984]

I agree broadly with what most people have said on this thread and made similar comments on another thread that went down that route.

 

I’ve seen people saying that people are just using this as a stick to beat footballers with and there are plenty of other millionaires, why are footballers getting picked on?

 

The issue isn’t just, they’re rich, people are getting poorer = that’s wrong. Although there may an element of that, it completely misses the point. The issue people have is that clubs who made a profit of half a billion last year and using a taxpayer funded scheme, intended for small businesses who will otherwise go to the wall, to pay their cleaners 80% of fizz all, whilst keeping their astronomically paid players exempt. The logistical difference is the contracts and that is where the players need to come in themselves and wake up to reality.

[Stoop]

1 hour ago, owlinexile said:

 

They are spoiled overgrown children who've never been denied anything in their lives.  I doubt a lot of them would even consider themselves in remotely the same situation as the kit man or cleaning lady. 

They better get ready for the public backlash then

[daleblue]

This is a messy situation,

tax payers having to fund non playing staff, whilst players receiving full pay from the Club.

 

Union hands are tied they cannot ask one set of players to take a pay cut, whilst telling others they don't have to.

 

I can only see a solution coming from the players themselves, and the sooner they do this the better.

 

 

[sweetsheri]

It’s hardly fair to ask Harry Kane to live on £140k a week is it... if the poor lad had to take a 30% pay cut that’s all he’ll get

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 hour ago, daleblue said:

Union hands are tied they cannot ask one set of players to take a pay cut, whilst telling others they don't have to.

 

Why not?

 

'All earnings above £15k per week are to be cut by 50%.'

 

That should do it.

[daleblue]

10 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

Why not?

 

'All earnings above £15k per week are to be cut by 50%.'

 

That should do it.

 

Maybe I should have said that, yes they can ask, but if that was the case then surely that question should have been asked already,

problem with a Union is that all members are treated the same, and that is the problem they have.

 

It is down to the individual players to take a pay cut.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

There we go.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/03/premier-league-clubs-will-ask-players-to-take-30-per-cent-wage-drop-cuts-deferrals

 

Common sense prevails among the Premier League clubs at least.

[Road Runner]

Donny, Coventry and Leyton Orient furlough the players. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52156758