Jump to content
BarnsleyOwl96

Sheffield Wednesday player pay deferral deal

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Ferkorf said:

I've just seen Rooney jumping on the bandwagon about this after Danny Rose at the weekend.

They are grumbling about a 30% cut.

Fair enough...

Give them a 20% cut just like half of the country has had to do to stay at home.

Time for these pampered possums to fall in line.

Fair enough they are overpaid, they shouldnt be backed into a corner and made scapegoats having to pay 30% just because they are loaded.

But make them lose 20% and they can't complain or moan.

Still getting enough money to live a lavish lifestyle and if they aren't then thats on them 

That's not what they are moaning about though is it. They dont want there 30% to just go into the owners pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pazowl55 said:

That's not what they are moaning about though is it. They dont want there 30% to just go into the owners pockets.

 

And neither should it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Grandad said:

I would imagine furloughing the entire non playing staff - and seeking a player wage deferral is more to do with us complying with FFP this season than anything else.

 

 

 

It would be simple for the club to say "Our non playing wage bill per month is £200,000.00. Our players earn £2m per month. Therefore if all of our players contribute 10% of their wages - we don't need to burden the taxpayer with furloughs".

 

It also means that a player on £30k per week - is now on £27k per week - and won't really notice a difference.

 

Seems like a great solution - until you have to take it to the PFA to mull over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

That's not what they are moaning about though is it. They dont want there 30% to just go into the owners pockets.

 

At very few clubs could it be perceived as going into the owners pockets though.

Even many PL clubs turnover a small profit or a loss thanks in the main to player salaries. Without income from games and possibly reduced income from TV money they are going to be making losses, especially at our level and below. 

Players signed contracts with their clubs to maximise their earnings, many clubs agreed to give them a huge proportion of the total income of the clubs, primarily to have them play for their clubs. It is understandable that when they are not doing 100% of their job, clubs want and need to reduce their pay. Any debate about the earnings going into the pockets of owners doesn't really apply at the majority of clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, dowls said:


irony of that statement with the stuff that get spouted on here regards DC.

 

 

Go on I'll bite.. What do you mean?


 


Sheffield Videos | Owlstalk | Sheffield History 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

At very few clubs could it be perceived as going into the owners pockets though.

Even many PL clubs turnover a small profit or a loss thanks in the main to player salaries. Without income from games and possibly reduced income from TV money they are going to be making losses, especially at our level and below. 

Players signed contracts with their clubs to maximise their earnings, many clubs agreed to give them a huge proportion of the total income of the clubs, primarily to have them play for their clubs. It is understandable that when they are not doing 100% of their job, clubs want and need to reduce their pay. Any debate about the earnings going into the pockets of owners doesn't really apply at the majority of clubs.

Aslong as things go back to normal and football is restarted then any pay cuts players take will effectively go to the owners. Players want to make sure if they do take a pay cut it goes to worthy courses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

That's not what they are moaning about though is it. They dont want there 30% to just go into the owners pockets.

Wayne Rooney....

Whatever way you look at it, we're easy targets. What gets lost is that half our wages get taken by the taxman. Money that goes to the government, money that is helping the NHS."

Rooney questioned why "big stars from other sports, who are able to avoid tax by living in places like Monaco" are not being scrutinised over the financial support they are offering in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.

 

So yes it what they are moaning about though innit???? Dooosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ferkorf said:

Wayne Rooney....

Whatever way you look at it, we're easy targets. What gets lost is that half our wages get taken by the taxman. Money that goes to the government, money that is helping the NHS."

Rooney questioned why "big stars from other sports, who are able to avoid tax by living in places like Monaco" are not being scrutinised over the financial support they are offering in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic.

 

So yes it what they are moaning about though innit???? Dooosh

What I mean is they are not moaning about paying the 30% to the government they just want it used right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pazowl55 said:

Aslong as things go back to normal and football is restarted then any pay cuts players take will effectively go to the owners. Players want to make sure if they do take a pay cut it goes to worthy courses.

 

This is what you recently said in the the thread on when will the season end:

 

"Problem is all that money they may have to pay back is gone. That's why they on moaning so much. probably only a couple of clubs could just instantly pay the 50 odd million back with no trouble".. 

 

So if the clubs lose the TV money you think most won't be able to afford to pay it back - and that is just at top level, never mind further down the chain. 

The money at most clubs will be going towards ensuring they can continue to function due to their associated losses. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

This is what you recently said in the the thread on when will the season end:

 

"Problem is all that money they may have to pay back is gone. That's why they on moaning so much. probably only a couple of clubs could just instantly pay the 50 odd million back with no trouble".. 

 

So if the clubs lose the TV money you think most won't be able to afford to pay it back - and that is just at top level, never mind further down the chain. 

The money at most clubs will be going towards ensuring they can continue to function due to their associated losses. 

 

Course it will help the club yeah but teams lose millions each year and players aren't ask to take a 30% cut to help are they. My point is if players do take a cut then they want that to help this fund the Coronavirus causes not pay for the running of the club. A Wage deferral would help with the running of the club. If all revenue was lost and things didint go back to how they were to some degree financially then players prob would help with wage cuts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the point that players making a pay cut / deferral will only really save Chansiri money.

But to me the point is players still getting paid £30k pw when we are asking for tax payers help to pay non playing staff on very low wages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Course it will help the club yeah but teams lose millions each year and players aren't ask to take a 30% cut to help are they. My point is if players do take a cut then they want that to help this fund the Coronavirus causes not pay for the running of the club. A Wage deferral would help with the running of the club. If all revenue was lost and things didint go back to how they were to some degree financially then players prob would help with wage cuts.

 

If deductions were agreed and made from their NETT pay then the substantial contributions that they make to resources through their taxes would remain intact.

They are not doing the key part of the job that they are paid to do so I don't see why they should expect to get paid fully by their employers. The reduction in their wage will not go towards lining the pockets of the owners, it will go to maintaining the running of the clubs that they have been so happy to take such a big salary from in the good times recently. Money as you have said that many clubs need now due to a decrease in their income.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

Course it will help the club yeah but teams lose millions each year and players aren't ask to take a 30% cut to help are they. My point is if players do take a cut then they want that to help this fund the Coronavirus causes not pay for the running of the club. A Wage deferral would help with the running of the club. If all revenue was lost and things didint go back to how they were to some degree financially then players prob would help with wage cuts.

They are moaning because most are saying they can't afford it.

Im sorry but I cant even defend that.

If I get furloughed next week I can't afford to lose 20% of my wage but difference is I have to.

BBC sport aren't going to listen to Ferky moan about my wages and that I cant afford it.

Thats why if they arent careful people will turn on them.

But also agree with Gary McLineker (this is a first)...

Shouldnt just be footballers in the spotlight and being held at gunpoint in the public eye.

 

If the money is kept by the club and not going to where it is truly needed then thats when the clubs need shaming.

 

Lets hope they can come up with a decent resolution to this without any of the players or clubs becoming super villians and scapegoats in this crisis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:


I literally don't care about this.

It doesn't affect me one bit whether Forestieri and Palmer get full pay, 30% less, or none at all for a month or so.

Not sure why people are so worried about it

 

You don't think it is topical and of interest that clubs, ours included have turned to government-funded money at this time in order to ensure non-playing related staff get paid but the club still currently has to pay its players 100% of their wage? 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

If deductions were agreed and made from their NETT pay then the substantial contributions that they make to resources through their taxes would remain intact.

They are not doing the key part of the job that they are paid to do so I don't see why they should expect to get paid fully by their employers. The reduction in their wage will not go towards lining the pockets of the owners, it will go to maintaining the running of the clubs that they have been so happy to take such a big salary from in the good times recently. Money as you have said that many clubs need now due to a decrease in their income.  

 

11 minutes ago, Ferkorf said:

They are moaning because most are saying they can't afford it.

Im sorry but I cant even defend that.

If I get furloughed next week I can't afford to lose 20% of my wage but difference is I have to.

BBC sport aren't going to listen to Ferky moan about my wages and that I cant afford it.

Thats why if they arent careful people will turn on them.

But also agree with Gary McLineker (this is a first)...

Shouldnt just be footballers in the spotlight and being held at gunpoint in the public eye.

 

If the money is kept by the club and not going to where it is truly needed then thats when the clubs need shaming.

 

Lets hope they can come up with a decent resolution to this without any of the players or clubs becoming super villians and scapegoats in this crisis.

 

Agree with you both. I think that there are many footballers that would want to help out but at the moment are a bit confused about how to do so. Everyone taking a massive pay cut may not be the best way at the moment. maybe say 30% straight to the NHS is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

You don't think it is topical and of interest that clubs, ours included have turned to government-funded money at this time in order to ensure non-playing related staff get paid but the club still currently has to pay its players 100% of their wage? 

On my point above a better use of a pay cut could be so we dont have to use government money to furlough non playing staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

You don't think it is topical and of interest that clubs, ours included have turned to government-funded money at this time in order to ensure non-playing related staff get paid but the club still currently has to pay its players 100% of their wage? 

 

No, clearly he doesn't.

 

Now take a look at this picture of Peter Shirtliff and shurrup...

 

:duntmatter:

 

1956638647_PeterShirtliff.thumb.jpg.b7d7f94d1c809a34d8e5f59328fd8624.jpg

 

Sheffield Wednesday mullet-sporting legend Peter Shirtliff
www.owlstalk.co.uk
#swfc

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

That's what I thought. 

 

We have players on to much to furlough staff would be one concern. They would only be getting about 10% odd of there actual wage. Also if every club did that think of the strain on the government. paying 2500 a month to say 40 people per club in most cases. 

 

Also and the most important one of all is we furloughed them they would no longer pay massive amounts of tax which the government need. 

 

If every club could furlough playing staff and it be ok to do so they would as thats probably 80% of there total outgoings.

Honest question how many people honestly thing football player pay tax on all of their earnings. They all have management companies set up to reduce their tax.

 

if Jordan Rhodes is paying £16,000 a week tax on his £40,000 then I stand corrected but I just cannot see it.H

 

Harry Kane on £12m a season salary has he paid £5m in tax this year.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Honest question how many people honestly thing football player pay tax on all of their earnings. They all have management companies set up to reduce their tax.

 

if Jordan Rhodes is paying £16,000 a week tax on his £40,000 then I stand corrected but I just cannot see it.H

 

Harry Kane on £12m a season salary has he paid £5m in tax this year.

Unless they are tax dodging then technically speaking they should have.

lol

 

Will prob have a few tax deductible things going on though I should think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between playing and non-playing staff are the fact that the players are assets with a sizeable value 

 

For many clubs - especially ones that have sold their ground - they’re about the only assets a club has.

 

Not paying them their full wage could constitute breach of contract, so unless you reach an agreement on a deferral or reduction it could be risky for a club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

√ó
√ó
  • Create New...