Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Damien

Furlough Scheme abuse

Recommended Posts

Hearing the news that football clubs like Tottenham are using the furlough scheme to pay staff whilst footballers get their wages as normal seems like abuse of the scheme to me and doesn't sit well. Surely this scheme should only be for those that genuinely need to use it?

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit more information here:

Premier League clubs are living in a “moral vacuum” and players should be first to sacrifice salaries during the coronavirus pandemic, say politicians.

Julian Knight, the chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee, has condemned the actions of some Premier League clubs, who have furloughed non-playing staff.

Tottenham, Newcastle, Bournemouth and Norwich have opted to utilise the government’s job retention scheme.

“It sticks in the throat,” said Knight.

“This exposes the crazy economics in English football and the moral vacuum at its centre.”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52120578

Edited by Damien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All staff including players should be on the scheme , those on fixed term contracts then get that contract extended for the period on the scheme , end of , anybody doesn't like it , complain and the club goes public , be interesting to see the ' welcome ' those staff would see upon resuming their work 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have I heard correctly on the News that some players want to make donations to the N.H.S. but the Footballers Union are advising the players not to do anything without speaking to them first.Personally if I was on there sort of money I would be telling the union where to go.My money, my decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Have I heard correctly on the News that some players want to make donations to the N.H.S. but the Footballers Union are advising the players not to do anything without speaking to them first.Personally if I was on there sort of money I would be telling the union where to go.My money, my decision.

Another case of people just wanting - and loving -  to be in charge and have power !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Damien said:

Hearing the news that football clubs like Tottenham are using the furlough scheme to pay staff whilst footballers get their wages as normal seems like abuse of the scheme to me and doesn't sit well. Surely this scheme should only be for those that genuinely need to use it?

Whilst it may not feel right, I'm not sure it is wrong tbh. 

With all due respect, people doing the backroom jobs have no work to do and I see no issue with them being furloughed. 

The one thing I would like to see is the companies topping the wage up to the 100% mark so nobody loses out. 

Share this post


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

All staff including players should be on the scheme , those on fixed term contracts then get that contract extended for the period on the scheme , end of , anybody doesn't like it , complain and the club goes public , be interesting to see the ' welcome ' those staff would see upon resuming their work 

Why are you championing players losing their wages? 

Seems a mean spirited thing to demand. 

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst it may not feel right, I'm not sure it is wrong tbh. 

With all due respect, people doing the backroom jobs have no work to do and I see no issue with them being furloughed. 

The one thing I would like to see is the companies topping the wage up to the 100% mark so nobody loses out. 

Tottenham made profits of £68m and their players on average earn £70k a week. Their chairman earns £7 million a year. Its a bit rich of the taxpayer to subside the club and keep highly paid players, who also have no work to do, in full pay rather than them making cuts elsewhere.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Tottenham made profits of £68m and their players on average earn £70k a week. Their chairman earns £7 million a year. Its a bit rich of the taxpayer to subside the club and keep highly paid players, who also have no work to do, in full pay rather than them making cuts elsewhere.

There will be plenty of profitable businesses using this scheme so I don't judge them for that. I would expect a minimum requirement of work at home i.e. Fitness work etc from the players. 

I do understand your view, but ultimately, elite athletes are in a different position to somebody working in retail for a club. 

Like I say, I'd like to think they would at least be topping up to the 100% so nobody loses out. 

Edited by Dave T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Why are you championing players losing their wages? 

Seems a mean spirited thing to demand. 

They wouldn't be losing wages Dave , just deffering them to the end of their contract , this would help their clubs to look after their lesser paid staff and assist within their communities and in many cases keep them financially solvent cash flow wise 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

There will be plenty of profitable businesses using this scheme so I don't judge them for that. I would expect a minimum requirement of work at home i.e. Fitness work etc from the players. 

I do understand your view, but ultimately, elite athletes are in a different position to somebody working in retail for a club. 

Like I say, I'd like to think they would at least be topping up to the 100% so nobody loses out. 

Apart from the taxpayer of course who will fund this for years to come.

I know people that have been kept in jobs and kept people in full pay who could have easily been furloughed. There are companies offering their staff to be volunteers whilst paying their staff full pay. They were in a position to do the right thing and did so. Similarly more unscrupulous companies have used it and abused it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

They wouldn't be losing wages Dave , just deffering them to the end of their contract , this would help their clubs to look after their lesser paid staff and assist within their communities and in many cases keep them financially solvent cash flow wise 

 

It wouldn't though, if the clubs furloughed everyone, then wouldn't the taxpayer just pay an unnecessary amount to a load of football players who clubs are prepared to pay? 

Share this post


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

Apart from the taxpayer of course who will fund this for years to come.

I know people that have been kept in jobs and kept people in full pay who could have easily been furloughed. There are companies offering their staff to be volunteers whilst paying their staff full pay. They were in a position to do the right thing and did so. Similarly more unscrupulous companies have used it and abused it.

I must admit I don't know companies who are not using this scheme (where their staff don't have stuff to do and income has stopped), that is probably influencing my view here. 

I work for a bank, so we are all carrying on working so it's not an option, but pretty much everyone I know has been furloughed, some getting paid more than the 80%. 

Share this post


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

It wouldn't though, if the clubs furloughed everyone, then wouldn't the taxpayer just pay an unnecessary amount to a load of football players who clubs are prepared to pay? 

If the club can afford to pay everybody the furlough rate ( including players ) then fine , do that , if only from a PR exercise point of view it is the right thing to do , IMO , it is slightly obscene players still recieving huge wages when clubs revenues are being drastically reduced 

Share this post


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

If the club can afford to pay everybody the furlough rate ( including players ) then fine , do that , if only from a PR exercise point of view it is the right thing to do , IMO , it is slightly obscene players still recieving huge wages when clubs revenues are being drastically reduced 

Players have a huge value for their unique talent. The rest of us are relatively replaceable. Players are crucial for sport, if a club can afford to pay them, they should. 

I don't think that automatically obligate them to pay for the shop staff who won't be working. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Players have a huge value for their unique talent. The rest of us are relatively replaceable. Players are crucial for sport, if a club can afford to pay them, they should. 

I don't think that automatically obligate them to pay for the shop staff who won't be working. 

Yes , and that value won't disappear in a few months of shutdown , pretty much everything right now is a ' hibernation ' , a reducing of costs like an animal slows down its heart rate to get through winter , as I said , for every month of ' hibernation a contract gets extended for a month , in all sports the seasonal structures are going to change , our season might well stretch out past the normal contract periods , in football transfer windows might well change or not apply 

It's all about survival , be that clubs , jobs , people , slow down , sit it out and then sort out when it's over 

Edited by GUBRATS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes , and that value won't disappear in a few months of shutdown , pretty much everything right now is a ' hibernation ' , a reducing of costs like an animal slows down its heart rate to get through winter , as I said , for every month of ' hibernation a contract gets extended for a month , in all sports the seasonal structures are going to change , our season might well stretch out past the normal contract periods , in football transfer windows might well change or not apply 

It's all about survival , be that clubs , jobs , people , slow down , sit it out and then sort out when it's over 

I agree with a lot of what you say but that decision needs to come from the footballers themselves. Like the Barcelona players who have voluntarily taken a 70% pay cut. If the clubs try to force this they are effectively making players free agents the top players can easily find another club who will pay their wages. 

Share this post


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

I agree with a lot of what you say but that decision needs to come from the footballers themselves. Like the Barcelona players who have voluntarily taken a 70% pay cut. If the clubs try to force this they are effectively making players free agents the top players can easily find another club who will pay their wages. 

Yes they could , and feel the backlash of the fans who knew what the greedy bstd thought of them , sad isn't it ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Yes they could , and feel the backlash of the fans who knew what the greedy bstd thought of them , sad isn't it ?

Fans soon forget tbh. And if they don't, players just move on. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Yes , and that value won't disappear in a few months of shutdown , pretty much everything right now is a ' hibernation ' , a reducing of costs like an animal slows down its heart rate to get through winter , as I said , for every month of ' hibernation a contract gets extended for a month , in all sports the seasonal structures are going to change , our season might well stretch out past the normal contract periods , in football transfer windows might well change or not apply 

It's all about survival , be that clubs , jobs , people , slow down , sit it out and then sort out when it's over 

I'm not going into the obscenity of player wages, but it makes sense to furlough staff on £30 to £40k per annum far more than players on 20 times that. 

As an example. 

Say Spurs had 550 staff (sure I saw that number) with an average wage of £40k, they could reduce their wage bill for these by around £4m for the 3m period, and keep literally everyone happy. Players get full wages, staff get full wages (including top up from Spurs) and Spurs trim £4m of costs. 

The challenge comes when that £4m ain't enough, and a club needs to trim, say, £15m, but that is when you look to trim the players costs. 

It makes sense to furlough the lower paid staff in these instances. Sure they could trim millions off the bill by enforcing it on players, but the risk is higher. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the rules of the furlough scheme say you cant do anything related to your work whilst taking the money

 

I guess playing devils advocate - if a player worked out and kept their skills/condition up they break that rule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, SSoutherner said:

Well the rules of the furlough scheme say you cant do anything related to your work whilst taking the money

 

I guess playing devils advocate - if a player worked out and kept their skills/condition up they break that rule

Yes, I made this point earlier. Fitzpatrick at Wire said as soon as players get the go ahead they will play straight away. They have fitness programs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SSoutherner said:

Well the rules of the furlough scheme say you cant do anything related to your work whilst taking the money

 

I guess playing devils advocate - if a player worked out and kept their skills/condition up they break that rule

Well they don't because its exercise and people have been told to do exercise. Its essential for health and wellbeing. They certainly couldn't go out and play a game though. People furloughed who work in I.T for example aren't barred from using a computer.

Edited by Damien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Damien said:

Well they don't because its exercise and people have been told to do exercise. Its essential for health and wellbeing. They certainly couldn't go out and play a game though. People furloughed who work in I.T for example aren't barred from using a computer.

I did say "playing devils advocate"

What about a kicker going out and knocking 100 balls over some posts - exercise or work ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...