Moral Vacuum

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, ruusowl said:

Furloughing the non-playing staff costs the tax payer money. 

 

I don't understand your point mate.

Does that mean footballers forfeiting their wages until the outbreak is over (at which point they just get all the money at that point anyway) makes things better or worse?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Chansiri is footing the bill so it's not costing anyone anything other than the Chairman.

Any forfeiting of player wages won't impact anyone on this forum one jot.

Not one bit.

It won't make anything better, won't affect anyone in any way, and won't benefit anyone at all.

It's nonsensical

Getting Google, Facebook, Starbucks to pay their taxes WILL benefit the economy beyond belief however.

But yeah..

Let's have a pop at Barry Bannan and the boys for receiving the pay the club said it would pay them in their contracts when they signed it cos that'll make everything ok in life...

 

It will affect the club because their wages will go down in the accounts while the expected from this period is lost. Chansiri might be handing the money over but it also impacts on the club.

 

I get that there are bigger injustices and they are more hard felt at this time but the big corps not paying tax has always been an issue.

 

Should we never discuss the merit of what our players earn? 

 

Some people will see players getting 100% of their healthy salaries as an issue that affects the football clubs they support, especially when the tax payer is funding at least 80% of the wages of the other people employed by football clubs.

 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

Some people will see players getting 100% of their healthy salaries as an issue that affects the football clubs they support, especially when the tax payer is funding at least 80% of the wages of the other people employed by football clubs.

Get the big companies to pay their tax = problem more than sorted

Imagine how much better off this country would be if just BP paid their fair share?

Billions of pounds every year better off just from ONE company paying tax.

I'd rather our government focus on that and really sort it out, than ask Adthe Nuhiu not to have his wages until two or three months later..

[ruusowl]

7 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

I don't understand your point mate.

Does that mean footballers forfeiting their wages until the outbreak is over (at which point they just get all the money at that point anyway) makes things better or worse?

 

I'd like to think if I was one of the players I'd be at least offering to defer my wages to enable the non playing staff to carry on getting paid without tax payers bailing out the club

 

But for me it's more about the clubs wage budgets being way too high in the first place.

Edited May 2, 2020 by ruusowl

[@owlstalk]

Just now, ruusowl said:

 

I'd like to think if I was one of the players I'd be at least offering to defer my wages to enable the non playing staff to carry on getting paid with out tax payers having to bail them out.

 

But for me it's more about the clubs wage budgets being way too high in the first place.

 

Yeah totally and that's the real point at our club.

Deferring wages would have zero impact

Reducing the wage bill at SWFC would.

Maybe football will change after this outbreak, or maybe (because it's totally money led/money fed/money motivated) it won't

[Guest]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

Get the big companies to pay their tax = problem more than sorted

Imagine how much better off this country would be if just BP paid their fair share?

Billions of pounds every year better off just from ONE company paying tax.

I'd rather our government focus on that and really sort it out, than ask Adthe Nuhiu not to have his wages until two or three months later..

 

I agree that the football salaries should not be an issue fr government to bring up and getting the corps to pay their fair share would help the economy massively in general, even more so at this time.

 

That's a completely separate issue to the finances of our club though. That's what we are talking about here. The taxpayer is paying for our tea lady because our loss making club has no income and can't afford to keep doing so but our players are still taking all of their money out of the club.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

That's a completely separate issue to the finances of our club though. That's what we are talking about here. The taxpayer is paying for our tea lady because our loss making club has no income and can't afford to keep doing so but our players are still taking all of their money out of the club.

The Government has encouraged all businesses to furlough their staff.

They've asked them to.

They've put a scheme together, told companies to use it.

Your complaint is with the scheme not the club.

[@owlstalk]

PS - I don't really care one way or the other on this one

If Adam Reach and co decide to put off getting their wages for a couple of months it will have zero impact on me, my life, my football club, or anything else.

It just won't make any difference to anything.

I just can't fathom someone sitting thinking "I know... I'll get irate at footballers for not offering to put off getting their pay cheque for a month or two"

I don't understand that.

Might just be me.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

The Government has encouraged all businesses to furlough their staff.

They've asked them to.

They've put a scheme together, told companies to use it.

Your complaint is with the scheme not the club.

 

Absolutely not, the scheme is doing what it is designed to do. As I said, I can see as a loss-making organisation why we have used it - it makes sense.

 

The issues is that the players are protected from being furloughed and so are still getting full pay - player power in contracts and further help from the union. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

PS - I don't really care one way or the other on this one

If Adam Reach and co decide to put off getting their wages for a couple of months it will have zero impact on me, my life, my football club, or anything else.

It just won't make any difference to anything.

I just can't fathom someone sitting thinking "I know... I'll get irate at footballers for not offering to put off getting their pay cheque for a month or two"

I don't understand that.

Might just be me.

 

Don't complain about the clubs finances then. If you don't think paying players for not playing while the club has no income then paying them when we do have an income can't be much of an issue can it, regardless of how in debt we are?

 

Perhaps this thread isn't for you then?  Granted there are bigger issues, but that goes for many of the threads you have started recently.....

[@owlstalk]

3 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Absolutely not, the scheme is doing what it is designed to do. As I said, I can see as a loss-making organisation why we have used it - it makes sense.

 

The issues is that the players are protected from being furloughed and so are still getting full pay - player power in contracts and further help from the union. 

 

 

What about everyone else on huge whopping contracts?

The CEO's?

The Bankers?

The people in boardrooms up and down the country?

Pop Stars and Rock Idols

TV Presenters

 

Piers Morgan

Movie stars still raking it in from royalties from films they were in

All still getting their full pay

[@owlstalk]

Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

Don't complain about the clubs finances then. If you don't think paying players for not playing while the club has no income then paying them when we do have an income can't be much of an issue can it, regardless of how in debt we are?

 

It's their contract though.

They were offered a contract, signed it, and are working under the terms of their contracts.

 

Take your logic to the 'nth' degree and you could also ask at what point does it become an issue for you?

£10000 a week?

If so what about £9000 a week?

Are they an issue?

£8500 a week?

£5000 a week?

How does it work in your calculated irateness?

 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

What about everyone else on huge whopping contracts?

The CEO's?

The Bankers?

The people in boardrooms up and down the country?

Pop Stars and Rock Idols

TV Presenters

 

Piers Morgan

Movie stars still raking it in from royalties from films they were in

All still getting their full pay

 

Going round in circles. I don't know whether they are getting full pay or not but I do know they don't impact on SWFC finances. This forum is for SWFC matters and yet it surprises you that people in this forum want to talk more about our players than Piers Morgan.

 

Perhaps you should start PiersMorganTalk?

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

Perhaps this thread isn't for you then?  

Well if you mean that you only want this thread to be full of people shaking their heads and raising their fists at our players in absolute anger then I'd put forward the suggestion that this would be a pretty poor discussion on the subject.

 

 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Going round in circles. I don't know whether they are getting full pay or not but I do know they don't impact on SWFC finances. This forum is for SWFC matters and yet it surprises you that people in this forum want to talk more about our players than Piers Morgan.

 

Perhaps you should start PiersMorganTalk?

You keep ranting on and on about people wanting to talk about SWFC

I'm doing that

As are you

Not sure why you're all confused about it

Are you up too late? Getting tired and confused?

 

 

[@owlstalk]

Answer me this simple question..

If Steven Fletcher and Barry Bannan and the entire first team squad went to Chansiri and said "Right then Chairman, We're going to defer our wages for three months and not get that money until three months time"

WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS?

 

[DJMortimer]

1 hour ago, TINKERBELL said:

Had a seizure in Asda in chapeltown and nearly died. A nurse from northern general hospital was there luckily and brought me back around. I'd stopped breathing and lost consciousness. 

 

First I've heard of this. Sh*t me. As you said, that will make you re-evaluate your priorities in a hurry.

 

All the best getting your body (and your mind) back together.

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Well if you mean that you only want this thread to be full of people shaking their heads and raising their fists at our players in absolute anger then I'd put forward the suggestion that this would be a pretty poor discussion on the subject.

 

 

 

You aren't discussing the topic though, you are bring hugely important issues, but ones which are not relevant into the debate as reasons why this is not important.

 

I'll leave you to it.

[ruusowl]

3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Answer me this simple question..

If Steven Fletcher and Barry Bannan and the entire first team squad went to Chansiri and said "Right then Chairman, We're going to defer our wages for three months and not get that money until three months time"

WHO BENEFITS FROM THIS?

 

 

The clubs cash flow I guess.

 

Someone must do because players have been doing it up and down the country

[@owlstalk]

3 minutes ago, ruusowl said:

The clubs cash flow I guess.

But the other staff would remain furloughed anyway, and the players would get their deffered wages in one huge lump sum anyway after the three months is up.

So who benefits really?