Furlough all staff including first team players

[MRGRIM]

Furlough the first team indefinitely

[WBridgfordowl]

The way they’ve performed this season, I’d quite to see them all on universal credit!

[fudge27]

Scumbag move from Sunderland. A club of their size trying to save 65k a month, with a wage bill that will be in the millions. 

 

Joke

[Buxtongent]

One thing is certain. There's going to have to be change! The first thing that we have to remember is that , in order for the players to continue getting paid at any club, the money has to come from somewhere. Where does the money come from now?

TV revenues, and Advertising? This will dry up because there is no end product

Millionaire Owners? Even rich owners have a limit to their finances, and can only stand a drain for so long

Government?  Believe it or not, no government has any money to spend save from what t takes from the Taxpayer. They can obviously go into debt by printing more, but sooner or later that has to be paid back. The Govt has , rightly , had to spend Billions fighting this epidemic, but it will have to be paid back later.

Clubs have laid off staffs, by any other name. Sooner or later, the money pot from the Owners is going to dry up.  Consider, a player receives ,for example, say, £10k /week, and there is a staff of 25. That's £250k /week. How long is any owner going to sustain that (figures made up ,, probably under rather than over)

 

[hopevalleyowl]

10 hours ago, TINKERBELL said:

Your definitely missing something. Perhaps a brain. 

 

Why should government pay wages when owners are millionaires and more. 

 

Because smart arse we are a business that cannot operate at the moment and don’t have the mega resources of a premier league club.

 

I think you are missing my point..

 

I am suggesting that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to let the government pay our wages up to £2.5k a month (as opposed to a likely wage bill of £500k + a month, paying non playing staff the additional 20% without topping up players wages until this is over to ensure the future of our club. 

 

To repeat, this is not the same as a Liverpool or a Tottenham furloughing staff, we are skint and potentially on the brink. Why is it wrong for the government to keep a community asset such as SWFC going?

Edited April 8, 2020 by hopevalleyowl

[pazowl55]

7 minutes ago, hopevalleyowl said:

 

Because smart arse we are a business that cannot operate at the moment and don’t have the mega resources of a premier league club.

 

I think you are missing my point..

 

I am suggesting that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to let the government pay our wages up to £2.5k a month (as opposed to a likely wage bill of £500k + a month, paying non playing staff the additional 20% without topping up players wages until this is over to ensure the future of our club. 

 

To repeat, this is not the same as a Liverpool or a Tottenham furloughing staff, we are skint and potentially on the brink. Why is it wrong for the government to keep a community asset such as SWFC going?

We are paying the non paying staff the extra 20% and our wage bill is more likely to be 500k a week not a month. The sum saved from furloughing players is a drop in the ocean considering and its because of that that people say that wealthy chairman should carry the can.

Edited April 8, 2020 by pazowl55

[Sergeant Tibbs]

11 hours ago, pazowl55 said:

Teams have to pay players in full or they will be in breach of contract and technically speaking that means they could rip it up and walk away free from the club.

I don’t think we’d be that lucky

[BARMYARMY2010]

4 hours ago, hopevalleyowl said:

 

Because smart arse we are a business that cannot operate at the moment and don’t have the mega resources of a premier league club.

 

I think you are missing my point..

 

I am suggesting that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to let the government pay our wages up to £2.5k a month (as opposed to a likely wage bill of £500k + a month, paying non playing staff the additional 20% without topping up players wages until this is over to ensure the future of our club. 

 

To repeat, this is not the same as a Liverpool or a Tottenham furloughing staff, we are skint and potentially on the brink. Why is it wrong for the government to keep a community asset such as SWFC going?

How are we "skint and potentially" on the brink? 

[mcmigo]

This debate I do find a little odd. There is a strange mix in the debate about players pay packets and the problems caused by the pandemic. That ‘ chickens are coming home to roost .’ The mixing is unhelpful.

 

the Government has, by design, put our society and economy into a deep freezer. It has said to Sunderland and all other clubs that they are not allowed to play or train , that their business operations like their shop and hospitality must close. It has , on purpose, removed the income from clubs . That is the result the government wants as it prevents people mixing.

 

the government already offer lots and lots of money to all sorts of people and business for them to behave in a certain way. We have a favourable tax regime for non Dom’s to attract people to come here. They offer tax relief on pensions for savers . Isas are tax free etc etc . In this case , the government are offering an incentive to retain staff but also crucially, you only get the money if you then do not work for your employer. To be clear , this is what the government want ! 
 

I have no real issues with us furloughing players as a result. It is no different to us benefiting from other government policies in every day business.

 

the question of player pay is a separate and different beast and shouldn’t be mixed in to the COVId 19 debate.

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, mcmigo said:

This debate I do find a little odd. There is a strange mix in the debate about players pay packets and the problems caused by the pandemic. That ‘ chickens are coming home to roost .’ The mixing is unhelpful.

 

the Government has, by design, put our society and economy into a deep freezer. It has said to Sunderland and all other clubs that they are not allowed to play or train , that their business operations like their shop and hospitality must close. It has , on purpose, removed the income from clubs . That is the result the government wants as it prevents people mixing.

 

the government already offer lots and lots of money to all sorts of people and business for them to behave in a certain way. We have a favourable tax regime for non Dom’s to attract people to come here. They offer tax relief on pensions for savers . Isas are tax free etc etc . In this case , the government are offering an incentive to retain staff but also crucially, you only get the money if you then do not work for your employer. To be clear , this is what the government want ! 
 

I have no real issues with us furloughing players as a result. It is no different to us benefiting from other government policies in every day business.

 

the question of player pay is a separate and different beast and shouldn’t be mixed in to the COVId 19 debate.

 

 

 

Players cannot be furloughed as it would be a breach of their contracts that would seemingly leave them free to either claim for the full amount of their contract to be paid up by clubs or allow them to go elsewhere for nothing, neither of which clubs want to happen.

The vast majority of players in the top 2 divisions are not going to accept being furloughed to a maximum government pay out of £2500 per month which is why we are in this situation.

 

The scheme is designed to keep some forms of the economy moving by giving those that usually earn a sensible wage enough to be able to afford to shop for food and the like. It allows businesses to retain their staff for a period without the burden of paying them when the business is not bringing in money.

 

The government have advised to work from home wherever possible and have not instructed football clubs to stop training. In this day and age it is easy for clubs at that level to produce training plans and monitor them remotely. 

 

The issue of player pay in general is being highlighted because for too long many clubs have splashed a disproportionate amount of money on player wages when compared to income and now that fact is hitting them where it hurts as the unions squabble over how much of a deduction would be reasonable for PL players who on average earn over £63,000 per week. 

 

 

[Mr. Tom]

23 hours ago, hopevalleyowl said:

Just seen Sunderland have put all staff including first team squad on furlough (£2,500 per month max)

 

Would it not be sensible for every club including us to do this?

 

Unless i’m missing something i can’t believe no-one else has done this with first team players 

First paragraph would make total sense if the £2500/mo was coming from inside the club and that’s all they got. Hard no to any funds coming in from elsewhere though.

[chrischapeltownowl]

Disgusting,players taking our hard earned money from the taxman. I hated professional footballers before but this is taking the michael.

[mcmigo]

22 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Players cannot be furloughed as it would be a breach of their contracts that would seemingly leave them free to either claim for the full amount of their contract to be paid up by clubs or allow them to go elsewhere for nothing, neither of which clubs want to happen.

The vast majority of players in the top 2 divisions are not going to accept being furloughed to a maximum government pay out of £2500 per month which is why we are in this situation.

 

The scheme is designed to keep some forms of the economy moving by giving those that usually earn a sensible wage enough to be able to afford to shop for food and the like. It allows businesses to retain their staff for a period without the burden of paying them when the business is not bringing in money.

 

The government have advised to work from home wherever possible and have not instructed football clubs to stop training. In this day and age it is easy for clubs at that level to produce training plans and monitor them remotely. 

 

The issue of player pay in general is being highlighted because for too long many clubs have splashed a disproportionate amount of money on player wages when compared to income and now that fact is hitting them where it hurts as the unions squabble over how much of a deduction would be reasonable for PL players who on average earn over £63,000 per week. 

 

 

That misunderstands the real government intention here. The scheme only pays if the employee doesn’t work at all. If it was designed to manage a drop in demand, then it would not have that clause in it. It is deliberately designed to shut people out of work for lockdown  and therefore out of the workplace for lockdown  ( the latter being the priority). 
 

to be clear, the government do not want footballers to work. They don’t want them to travel , or train, or play. Their scheme gives an incentive to make that happen.

[mcmigo]

3 minutes ago, chrischapeltownowl said:

Disgusting,players taking our hard earned money from the taxman. I hated professional footballers before but this is taking the michael.

It isn’t coming from the taxman . 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mcmigo said:

That misunderstands the real government intention here. The scheme only pays if the employee doesn’t work at all. If it was designed to manage a drop in demand, then it would not have that clause in it. It is deliberately designed to shut people out of work for lockdown  and therefore out of the workplace for lockdown  ( the latter being the priority). 
 

to be clear, the government do not want footballers to work. They don’t want them to travel , or train, or play. Their scheme gives an incentive to make that happen.

 

The advice is to work from home if you can and if you are not a key worker and cannot work from home the scheme is designed to support the worker and support the stability of the business going forward when working from home is not viable.

 

Of course they don't want people working together who do not need to do so as key workers. The government are not actively stopping footballers from training at home in a controlled isolated environment. 

[Mr. Tom]

1 hour ago, mcmigo said:

This debate I do find a little odd. There is a strange mix in the debate about players pay packets and the problems caused by the pandemic. That ‘ chickens are coming home to roost .’ The mixing is unhelpful.

 

the Government has, by design, put our society and economy into a deep freezer. It has said to Sunderland and all other clubs that they are not allowed to play or train , that their business operations like their shop and hospitality must close. It has , on purpose, removed the income from clubs . That is the result the government wants as it prevents people mixing.

 

the government already offer lots and lots of money to all sorts of people and business for them to behave in a certain way. We have a favourable tax regime for non Dom’s to attract people to come here. They offer tax relief on pensions for savers . Isas are tax free etc etc . In this case , the government are offering an incentive to retain staff but also crucially, you only get the money if you then do not work for your employer. To be clear , this is what the government want ! 
 

I have no real issues with us furloughing players as a result. It is no different to us benefiting from other government policies in every day business.

 

the question of player pay is a separate and different beast and shouldn’t be mixed in to the COVId 19 debate.

I see the point you’re making but ‘by design’ is hardly fair (and I’m not defending the govt by any stretch of the imagination!). Obviously lockdown is an emergency measure put in place to try to give the NHS a fighting chance and reduce long-term impact of pandemic on whole uk economy as much as possible.

Furlough-wise, emergency support measures available to certain people are there to help those likely to be placed in financial strife as a result of this horrible situation. It’s not supposed to be for everyone to take advantage of regardless of need, there just hasn’t really been time to put proper means testing in place.

 

Maybe we’re at cross purposes but I’m not sure how it’s better to separate the issue of player wages from general furlough suitability chat during the pandemic - it’s the very crux of the issue. These furlough payouts are literally just to try to minimise incidents of companies sacking their employees while this drags on, leading to massive unemployment and recession later. In that regard, yes, they indirectly ‘benefit’ the companies by easing cash flow - but the funds aren’t FOR the businesses, they’re for the individuals employed by them.

 

Championship footballers don’t need the support as individuals, so it would be wrong for the club to claim any support on their behalf, even if that were technically possible (which I don’t think it is, again the money isn’t for the employer).

 

 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Mr. Tom

[Steelman]

Any Premier League or Championship club that utilises this scheme is pure scum.

 

Us included.

 

Chansiri is supposed to have mega money but can't spend it because of FFP restrictions. So spend your own money and my season ticket money on the staff rather than leaching my tax money. And that goes for all the other pro clubs as well.

[daleblue]

On 08/04/2020 at 19:12, BARMYARMY2010 said:

How are we "skint and potentially" on the brink? 

Yes, some bloke on here said so. 

[Mr Farrell]

The players need to buy into the 10 year wages scheme.

 

No wages now, just a badge and a certificate. Then in 10 years, or when we get promoted (whatever comes first), they get their wages backdated, along with a special celebratory shirt for life.

 

Problem solved.

[LiamAP22D]

On 08/04/2020 at 07:52, pazowl55 said:

Teams have to pay players in full or they will be in breach of contract and technically speaking that means they could rip it up and walk away free from the club.

that wouldnt be horrific, i'd fizz most of them off anyway.