September

[@owlstalk]

10 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Why would the have no mortgage?

 

Also you could say the same about anyone.  Why should I feel sorry for the bloke who's been laid off from his job in Debenhams, he should have planned better for a global pandemic and saved more money.

 

I'm not saying I feel sorry for them, I don't. I'm saying it's too easy to say "you're rich you can manage" with no knowledge of the finances beyond "they're a footballer so must be rich".

 

There's been videos of Jacob Murphy out delivering shopping and prescriptions.  Premier League footballers have set up a fund that they're all paying in to to help benefit NHS charities.

 

It isn't footballers fault they are well paid, after all they are the reason the game exists.  What they spend it on is their business and nobody else's.  You can't sit in your ivory tower and say someone's income should be taken away simply because you don't like the situation.  How much have government ministers given up out of interest?  How much have football chairmen given up out of interest?

 

It's always the players that get attacked.

 

 

Plus they ONLY get paid the money they do because everyone has Sky TV packages.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

5 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Why would the have no mortgage?

 

Also you could say the same about anyone.  Why should I feel sorry for the bloke who's been laid off from his job in Debenhams, he should have planned better for a global pandemic and saved more money.

 

I'm not saying I feel sorry for them, I don't. I'm saying it's too easy to say "you're rich you can manage" with no knowledge of the finances beyond "they're a footballer so must be rich".

 

There's been videos of Jacob Murphy out delivering shopping and prescriptions.  Premier League footballers have set up a fund that they're all paying in to to help benefit NHS charities.

 

It isn't footballers fault they are well paid, after all they are the reason the game exists.  What they spend it on is their business and nobody else's.  You can't sit in your ivory tower and say someone's income should be taken away simply because you don't like the situation.  How much have government ministers given up out of interest?  How much have football chairmen given up out of interest?

 

It's always the players that get attacked.

Do you know what a payment holiday is? It’s where they allow you to not pay your mortgage for a specific period, deferring it to the end of the term. So effectively your mortgage payment during the period is zero. 
 

The guy at Debenhams is likely on minimum wage or just over, most of his money goes on living costs every month and has minimal savings. That situation is totally different to someone earning 40 grand a month, the average championship wage. I would totally expect anyone on 40k a month to have saved some money and if they haven’t they’ve mismanaged their finances so yes they aren’t worthy of as much support.

 

You don’t seem to have a good grasp of how economies actually work here. Businesses provide services or produce goods and sell them for money, which they then use to cover the costs of running the business and usually in most industries they make a profit otherwise they go under and are replaced by other more productive companies. When times are good, they have more free cash flow and can do things like add to the wage bill. When times are bad, they have to cut costs to survive. MPs are currently still working full time so of course they should get paid as usual. Some businesses are still operating with staff working from home, so again they get paid as usual because the business is still getting its revenue as normal. Other businesses have had to close and are therefore relying on the furlough scheme to avoid making redundancies. 
 

Football is a business that has had to close, so the employers are getting little revenue coming in. It’s pure delusion to think that that shouldn’t impact salaries because how are they supposed to be paid when there’s no money coming in. Any other industry would have forced them to be furloughed by now. That’s the distinction and why people are annoyed.. it’s not because they’re rich, it’s because they think they should receive special treatment. But I’m sure for some reason you’ll continue to suck up to them

[Avon barksdale]

Loads of our squad are out of contract in 2 months. So for example if your fletcher and currently injured or at least just recovering , he’s possibly looking at quite a while before he gets paid again , yes he’s a millionaire but don’t think he’s gonna be inclined to take a pay cut or defer any of his last 2 payslips from the club .On the other end of the spectrum isn’t Matt Penney also out of contract so he’s prob not earnt much in his career so again possibly not inclined to a cut or defer. I’d say our squad is split on this scenario 

[mattitheowl]

7 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Do you know what a payment holiday is? It’s where they allow you to not pay your mortgage for a specific period, deferring it to the end of the term. So effectively your mortgage payment during the period is zero. 
 

That will really help when there is currently only a 3 month payment holiday available and there is no sign of football again at all.  With most of our squad being out of contract in 2 months with no sign of being paid for the foreseeable after that.  I'm sure that will really help them.

 

The guy at Debenhams is likely on minimum wage or just over, most of his money goes on living costs every month and has minimal savings. That situation is totally different to someone earning 40 grand a month, the average championship wage. I would totally expect anyone on 40k a month to have saved some money and if they haven’t they’ve mismanaged their finances so yes they aren’t worthy of as much support.

 

So at 25 you expect them to have enough savings to potentially see them through for the rest of their lives being that they have no idea when their next pay day might come, if at all.  Or worse at 35 when they may be out of contract and this might be their final contract ever before retirement.  

 

You don’t seem to have a good grasp of how economies actually work here. Businesses provide services or produce goods and sell them for money, which they then use to cover the costs of running the business and usually in most industries they make a profit otherwise they go under and are replaced by other more productive companies. When times are good, they have more free cash flow and can do things like add to the wage bill. When times are bad, they have to cut costs to survive. MPs are currently still working full time so of course they should get paid as usual. Some businesses are still operating with staff working from home, so again they get paid as usual because the business is still getting its revenue as normal. Other businesses have had to close and are therefore relying on the furlough scheme to avoid making redundancies. 

 

What business to MPs work in that produces goods or services?  They are currently not attending work and have been given extra money to help them work from home.  What have I been given to help me work from home?  What has Liam Palmer been given to help him work from home?  
 

Football is a business that has had to close, so the employers are getting little revenue coming in. It’s pure delusion to think that that shouldn’t impact salaries because how are they supposed to be paid when there’s no money coming in. Any other industry would have forced them to be furloughed by now. That’s the distinction and why people are annoyed.. it’s not because they’re rich, it’s because they think they should receive special treatment. But I’m sure for some reason you’ll continue to suck up to them

 

Which footballer have you heard say they deserve special treatment?  Have you ever considered it is due to the nature of their water tight contracts that are there to protect them against unscrupulous owners that would cut them adrift at the first sign of a serious injury?  Plenty of clubs are owned by multi-millionaires, why can't they support their employees?  My company the directors have taken a 20% pay cut so we can keep earning our normal wages.  Have you heard of a single owner offering to help their staff?  No they put the low paid straight on furlough so WE could pay for them.  The players aren't the villains here.

 

[Sham67]

I don't know if it's just me, but I can't for the life of me work out what the point of playing any spectator sport without spectators would be.

[NorthernOwl]

2 hours ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Just don't understand how the EFL works behind closed doors.  Who's paying the players with no fans through the gates?

 

Streaming income and massively reduced wages. Players will have to accept much lower pay if it's a case of that or nothing. 

[mattitheowl]

2 minutes ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

Streaming income and massively reduced wages. Players will have to accept much lower pay if it's a case of that or nothing. 

 

They're tied in to contracts though!

[Guest LondonOwl313]

@mattitheowl

Are you one of the players by any chance? I feel like you aren't grasping the gravity of the financial situation but will respond to your points anyway:

 

That will really help when there is currently only a 3 month payment holiday available and there is no sign of football again at all.  With most of our squad being out of contract in 2 months with no sign of being paid for the foreseeable after that.  I'm sure that will really help them.

 

Nobody knows when this will all be over. The payment holidays are initially for 3 months because thats what the government requested but it will likely be extended. We'd just take it month by month as the situation develops. If players only have 2 months left on their contract and don't get paid for it, its just tough luck. Thats the reality of the situation facing millions up and down the country.

 

So at 25 you expect them to have enough savings to potentially see them through for the rest of their lives being that they have no idea when their next pay day might come, if at all.  Or worse at 35 when they may be out of contract and this might be their final contract ever before retirement.  

 

This is just nonsense tbh... why would it be for the rest of their lives? You're assuming they don't get another contract ever again, in which case thats just football isn't it. Again its unfortunate but its the reality of the economic situation. If you have two months left to retirement and losing two months pay causes you hardship then you haven't planned for retirement very well.

 

What business to MPs work in that produces goods or services?  They are currently not attending work and have been given extra money to help them work from home.  What have I been given to help me work from home?  What has Liam Palmer been given to help him work from home?  

 

This is a ridiculous point. MPs work for the public sector.. the service they provide is obvious, its not an economic one its running the country. We're talking about employees of businesses here which provide a service (i.e. football, entertainment industry). I've no idea what you do so can't comment on that... Liam Palmer can't work from home because he's a footballer. Its not his fault but its the reality. Millions of workers are furloughed because they can't work from home. Some of those will earn say £5k a month and now just get the government backed £2.5k. Without that they would be redundant.

 

Which footballer have you heard say they deserve special treatment?  Have you ever considered it is due to the nature of their water tight contracts that are there to protect them against unscrupulous owners that would cut them adrift at the first sign of a serious injury?  Plenty of clubs are owned by multi-millionaires, why can't they support their employees?  My company the directors have taken a 20% pay cut so we can keep earning our normal wages.  Have you heard of a single owner offering to help their staff?  No they put the low paid straight on furlough so WE could pay for them.  The players aren't the villains here.

 

They don't need to say anything, their actions are clear enough. This isn't a normal scenario is it, contracts are being broken all over the place so why should a football contract be different. Plenty of clubs have wealthy backers and plenty do not... It would work best if decisions were taken at the top and applied across the whole game for competition reasons if nothing else. Otherwise the game will be ruined for about 5 years while clubs recover. If nothing is done, the clubs with free cashflow will continue to honour contracts and the rest will go under if this goes on.. so all those players on long contracts will get a big fat zero anyway. Would also say that many club owners will be feeling the pinch too... look at Richard Branson, he's a billionaire and having cashflow problems. The players probably don't properly understand the situation because lets be honest they usually aren't that bright. Their advisors though are clearly pushing them to keep taking as much as they can. They either need to act or watch as clubs go bust and wages naturally deflate in a big way anyway going forward

[mattitheowl]

2 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

@mattitheowl

Are you one of the players by any chance? I feel like you aren't grasping the gravity of the financial situation but will respond to your points anyway:

 

That will really help when there is currently only a 3 month payment holiday available and there is no sign of football again at all.  With most of our squad being out of contract in 2 months with no sign of being paid for the foreseeable after that.  I'm sure that will really help them.

 

Nobody knows when this will all be over. The payment holidays are initially for 3 months because thats what the government requested but it will likely be extended. We'd just take it month by month as the situation develops. If players only have 2 months left on their contract and don't get paid for it, its just tough luck. Thats the reality of the situation facing millions up and down the country.

 

So at 25 you expect them to have enough savings to potentially see them through for the rest of their lives being that they have no idea when their next pay day might come, if at all.  Or worse at 35 when they may be out of contract and this might be their final contract ever before retirement.  

 

This is just nonsense tbh... why would it be for the rest of their lives? You're assuming they don't get another contract ever again, in which case thats just football isn't it. Again its unfortunate but its the reality of the economic situation. If you have two months left to retirement and losing two months pay causes you hardship then you haven't planned for retirement very well.

 

What business to MPs work in that produces goods or services?  They are currently not attending work and have been given extra money to help them work from home.  What have I been given to help me work from home?  What has Liam Palmer been given to help him work from home?  

 

This is a ridiculous point. MPs work for the public sector.. the service they provide is obvious, its not an economic one its running the country. We're talking about employees of businesses here which provide a service (i.e. football, entertainment industry). I've no idea what you do so can't comment on that... Liam Palmer can't work from home because he's a footballer. Its not his fault but its the reality. Millions of workers are furloughed because they can't work from home. Some of those will earn say £5k a month and now just get the government backed £2.5k. Without that they would be redundant.

 

Which footballer have you heard say they deserve special treatment?  Have you ever considered it is due to the nature of their water tight contracts that are there to protect them against unscrupulous owners that would cut them adrift at the first sign of a serious injury?  Plenty of clubs are owned by multi-millionaires, why can't they support their employees?  My company the directors have taken a 20% pay cut so we can keep earning our normal wages.  Have you heard of a single owner offering to help their staff?  No they put the low paid straight on furlough so WE could pay for them.  The players aren't the villains here.

 

They don't need to say anything, their actions are clear enough. This isn't a normal scenario is it, contracts are being broken all over the place so why should a football contract be different. Plenty of clubs have wealthy backers and plenty do not... It would work best if decisions were taken at the top and applied across the whole game for competition reasons if nothing else. Otherwise the game will be ruined for about 5 years while clubs recover. If nothing is done, the clubs with free cashflow will continue to honour contracts and the rest will go under if this goes on.. so all those players on long contracts will get a big fat zero anyway. Would also say that many club owners will be feeling the pinch too... look at Richard Branson, he's a billionaire and having cashflow problems. The players probably don't properly understand the situation because lets be honest they usually aren't that bright. Their advisors though are clearly pushing them to keep taking as much as they can. They either need to act or watch as clubs go bust and wages naturally deflate in a big way anyway going forward

 

So in summary, "f*ck 'em".  Nice.

Edited April 22, 2020 by mattitheowl

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 minute ago, mattitheowl said:

 

So in summary, "f*ck 'em".  Nice.

Thats the cold hard reality of severe economic recessions. Not sure why anyone would think that nobody anywhere should ever lose out financially when something bad happens

[mattitheowl]

2 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Thats the cold hard reality of severe economic recessions. Not sure why anyone would think that nobody anywhere should ever lose out financially when something bad happens

 

So why shouldn't the guy from Debenhams lose his job then and why are the government or indeed you and I paying his wages?  Not my fault he works for a failing business.  F*ck him.  That's the cold hard reality...

[Dick_Turpin]

4 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

contracts are being broken all over the place so why should a football contract be different

 

They are different though aren't they? Most of us have contracts with a brief notice period clause that either party can invoke. Mine was a week - although to be fair we were given 2 weeks. Footballers can't just give notice and leave without compensation. Before Bosman they couldn't even leave at the end of their contracts.  

 

I haven't seen a footballer's contract but I assume it's different from standard employment contracts.  They sign over that freedom to leave for other benefits.  They're well paid but so are many, many other people in this country who are still doing fine. Those with contracts running out on June 30 might never get a football job again  - I can see why they would be reticent and I also see why they will follow the PFA lead. I think there are far bigger villains than footballers. Mind you I think there are far bigger villains than the football authorities and let me tell you it's not a popular view. 

 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 minute ago, mattitheowl said:

 

So why shouldn't the guy from Debenhams lose his job then and why are the government or indeed you and I paying his wages?  Not my fault he works for a failing business.  F*ck him.  That's the cold hard reality...

Let's assume that the government (on behalf of taxpayers) doesn't offer the furlough scheme, what happens. Basically Debenhams look at their revenues and think we can't afford to keep all of these employees given our financial position, so they make redundancies all over the place. The nature of redundancies is such that once the economy reopens, those jobs are then gone. It would take a lot of time to bring them back. And that would happen across the whole economy and would be millions of jobs, which means millions of unemployment claims, which means a massive increase in government spending, plus a massive fall in aggregate demand. In other words, it would be terrible for the economy.

 

Therefore the government, by funding furloughing is helping companies to avoid making the redundancies in the first place, which then means that the economy can recover quicker once this is over. Which then means much less is spent on unemployment claims, which then means aggregate demand doesn't fall of a cliff to the same extent.

 

So furloughing is not about absolving people from losing any money and taking any financial losses, its about the best way of protecting jobs so we can recover. `That's why payments are capped at £2.5k a month, a level which allows people to live off. People on more than that are losing money. In the case of footballers, I'm saying why should it be any different to anyone else. The reality is, people are in denial and hoping this goes away in the short run. If clubs and players don't act then the economic situation will take it out of their hands anyway and teams will start folding all over the place.

[NorthernOwl]

19 minutes ago, mattitheowl said:

 

They're tied in to contracts though!

 

A contract means nothing if a club goes bust though does it. The reality is its closed doors or nothing and most clubs cant keep solvent if they honour current contracts on the reduced incomes they inevitably face.

[mattitheowl]

2 minutes ago, NorthernOwl said:

 

A contract means nothing if a club goes bust though does it. The reality is its closed doors or nothing and most clubs cant keep solvent if they honour current contracts on the reduced incomes they inevitably face.

 

How do they stay solvent with no incoming?  And why would a player risk their career for an employer that will not be paying their wages in 3 months?

 

It's a circular argument that needs some guidance from the governing bodies.  As it stands they are just pushing the problem down to the national associations who are then pushing down to clubs and players.

[mattitheowl]

5 minutes ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Let's assume that the government (on behalf of taxpayers) doesn't offer the furlough scheme, what happens. Basically Debenhams look at their revenues and think we can't afford to keep all of these employees given our financial position, so they make redundancies all over the place. The nature of redundancies is such that once the economy reopens, those jobs are then gone. It would take a lot of time to bring them back. And that would happen across the whole economy and would be millions of jobs, which means millions of unemployment claims, which means a massive increase in government spending, plus a massive fall in aggregate demand. In other words, it would be terrible for the economy.

 

Therefore the government, by funding furloughing is helping companies to avoid making the redundancies in the first place, which then means that the economy can recover quicker once this is over. Which then means much less is spent on unemployment claims, which then means aggregate demand doesn't fall of a cliff to the same extent.

 

So furloughing is not about absolving people from losing any money and taking any financial losses, its about the best way of protecting jobs so we can recover. `That's why payments are capped at £2.5k a month, a level which allows people to live off. People on more than that are losing money. In the case of footballers, I'm saying why should it be any different to anyone else. The reality is, people are in denial and hoping this goes away in the short run. If clubs and players don't act then the economic situation will take it out of their hands anyway and teams will start folding all over the place.

 

Look I understand how the economy works.  I'm asking why you feel that footballers are different to any other employee in all the other industries around the country.  And your only answer is "f*ck 'em, they're rich" which in all honesty nobody can argue with.  If that's how you feel fine, just don't try and dress it up.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

1 minute ago, mattitheowl said:

 

Look I understand how the economy works.  I'm asking why you feel that footballers are different to any other employee in all the other industries around the country.  And your only answer is "f*ck 'em, they're rich" which in all honesty nobody can argue with.  If that's how you feel fine, just don't try and dress it up.

Eh? You're the one saying that they're different to other employees. I'm saying they should be treated the same as other employees in all other industries around the country. And all of those industries that have seen their incomes falling dramatically have been furloughing.

 

I couldn't care less about how much people get paid, I have one of the most capitalist jobs going working for an asset manager. So I'm definitely not anti-rich. I'm just pointing out that they either act now or face the consequences in a few months when the cash cow they're milking runs out of milk

[OxonOwl]

They have different contracts of employment to the majority of people.

 

 

[mattitheowl]

1 minute ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Eh? You're the one saying that they're different to other employees. I'm saying they should be treated the same as other employees in all other industries around the country. And all of those industries that have seen their incomes falling dramatically have been furloughing.

 

I couldn't care less about how much people get paid, I have one of the most capitalist jobs going working for an asset manager. So I'm definitely not anti-rich. I'm just pointing out that they either act now or face the consequences in a few months when the cash cow they're milking runs out of milk

 

I'm saying their employment contracts and status is different.  I don't sign a 3 year contract with my work.  I don't get put out to pasture at 35, never to work again.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I don't know what the answer is for the football industry.  I'm saying it's different.  

 

Why haven't football clubs just furloughed all the players if it's that easy?

[Guest LondonOwl313]

2 minutes ago, OxonOwl said:

They have different contracts of employment to the majority of people.

 

 

Haven't Sunderland furloughed their players though? That suggests the contracts don't prevent them doing that