Furlough Scheme abuse

[Dave T]

56 minutes ago, Damien said:

To stop other less paid people having their wages cut and the taxpayer bailing them out when the club can quite easily fund this themselves. You may not agree to the reasoning behind it and, for some bizarre reason as a taxpayer, you may be more than happy at taxpayers cash being wasted on businesses that frankly can do without it. Others obviously disagree.

I'm not sure football clubs can just afford to lose millions and millions of pounds, just like other businesses can't. 

This is a scheme that will see these people retain their job and the majority of their wage (hopefully all their wage) instead of being laid off due to no work. 

This is literally what it was designed for. There was no clauses about having to lay off all of your staff. 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure football clubs can just afford to lose millions and millions of pounds, just like other businesses can't. 

This is a scheme that will see these people retain their job and the majority of their wage (hopefully all their wage) instead of being laid off due to no work. 

This is literally what it was designed for. There was no clauses about having to lay off all of your staff. 

How do you know they'd be laid off without this scheme? You are jumping to conclusions.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

How do you know they'd be laid off without this scheme? You are jumping to conclusions.

We have seen what happens time and again when businesses including sports clubs have financial issues. They lay staff off. It's the whole reason the scheme is there. 

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure football clubs can just afford to lose millions and millions of pounds, just like other businesses can't. 

This is a scheme that will see these people retain their job and the majority of their wage (hopefully all their wage) instead of being laid off due to no work. 

This is literally what it was designed for. There was no clauses about having to lay off all of your staff. 

This scheme , along with the self employed one is to get through a short term crisis ( 3 months ) without crippling the welfare dept and hopefully retaining as many jobs and as many businesses as possible by providing enough finance to survive on 

Nothing more , in theory given the restrictions on travel and social distancing 80% for the vast majority ( up to £600 per week , eqiv to a 30 K per year ) of workers should easily be enough to get through this 

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

We have seen what happens time and again when businesses including sports clubs have financial issues. They lay staff off. It's the whole reason the scheme is there. 

Who said they have financial issues? If they had financial issues they'd be cutting the pay of high earners, they are not.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Damien said:

Who said they have financial issues?

I think it is fair to assume that very many businesses have large gaps in their budget for the year. Hopefully no longer than that. 

But happy to disagree on this subject. I do understand your stance, it's just not my stance. 

[GUBRATS]

19 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

And yet as a self employed person , I can 

RL players aren't paid to train , they are payed to play 

[redjonn]

It does't sit right at all. to pay players the huge salaries whilst furloughing the relatively low paid staff...

No matter which way some try to explain it away it just isn't right for Premier league clubs to be doing this.   

A percentage cut of players wages, whom I have no doubt won't have an issue with it being done,  would easily cover the general staff of such a club.

As I say I would be greatly surprised if when a club asked players to take the cut to pay office staff they would not agree.

It was a simplistic make use of government furlough scheme without any real consideration.

[Saintslass]

I like it that Knight is threatening premier league soccer clubs with a windfall tax if they don't make a financial contribution towards the national effort.  Good on her.  PL soccer players earn obscene amounts of money for kicking a ball around a patch of grass.  They should take a pay cut in order to support their backroom staff who likely will be on relative peanuts before looking to the taxpayer to continue to prop up their obscene salaries.

[Damien]

Some interesting comments here from Matt Hancock and the PFA, who even seem to acknowledge this is detrimental to wider society:

Premier League footballers should "take a pay cut and play their part" during the coronavirus pandemic, says health secretary Matt Hancock.

Some clubs have furloughed non-playing staff but not looked at players' wages.

"Given the sacrifices many people are making, the first thing PL footballers can do is make a contribution," he said at the daily government briefing.

The Professional Footballers' Association (PFA) said "players will have to share the financial burden".

In a statement, the PFA added: "We are aware of the public sentiment that the players should pay non-playing staff's salaries. However, our current position is that - as businesses - if clubs can afford to pay their players and staff, they should.

"The players we have spoken to recognise that the non-playing staff are a vital part of their club and they do not want to see club staff furloughed unfairly.

"Any use of the government's support schemes without genuine financial need is detrimental to the wider society.

"In instances where clubs have the resources to pay all staff, the benefit of players paying non-playing staff salaries will only serve the business of the club's shareholders."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52142267

[Dave T]

Maybe there should have been tougher rules on which businesses could utilise this scheme, but I believe British Airways owners, who made around £2.5bn profit last year have utilised the scheme on a mass scale (30k employees). Their numbers are far in excess of the Premier League numbers in terms of profit and numbers furloughed. 

[Derwent]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Maybe there should have been tougher rules on which businesses could utilise this scheme, but I believe British Airways owners, who made around £2.5bn profit last year have utilised the scheme on a mass scale (30k employees). Their numbers are far in excess of the Premier League numbers in terms of profit and numbers furloughed. 

Accounting profit and cash in the bank are two different things. If you haven’t got the latter you can’t pay anyone no matter how profitable you are on paper. 

[Chrispmartha]

16 hours ago, Dave T said:

We have seen what happens time and again when businesses including sports clubs have financial issues. They lay staff off. It's the whole reason the scheme is there. 

This is true, but when sports clubs are in financial trouble who are the first members of 'staff' that they would try and offload?

I've absolutely no issue with Premiership clubs using the Furlough system, however I think they should be asking the high paid players to go on the scheme first and foremost (and not top their wages up), they are after all, unable to work.

I would have zero sympathy with a Premiership club who was in financial difficulty without first trying to get highly paid players to go on Furlough first.

[bobbruce]

48 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

This is true, but when sports clubs are in financial trouble who are the first members of 'staff' that they would try and offload?

I've absolutely no issue with Premiership clubs using the Furlough system, however I think they should be asking the high paid players to go on the scheme first and foremost (and not top their wages up), they are after all, unable to work.

I would have zero sympathy with a Premiership club who was in financial difficulty without first trying to get highly paid players to go on Furlough first.

That just isn’t going to happen the players are too valuable to clubs to make them effectively free agents. It’s like a garage saying we won’t lay any staff off but lets give all the Ferrari and jags away as they are costing us a fortune to keep clean. 

[Chrispmartha]

2 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

That just isn’t going to happen the players are too valuable to clubs to make them effectively free agents. It’s like a garage saying we won’t lay any staff off but lets give all the Ferrari and jags away as they are costing us a fortune to keep clean. 

Why would they be free agents?

 

[Bob8]

I am well paid.

I have not requested that my manager cut my wages. I am impressed that so many on this forum apparently have requested this for themselves.

Until I do the same, I will not condemn anyone else for not doing so. Even then, I will obviously wait to know their full ciscumstances.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Chrispmartha said:

This is true, but when sports clubs are in financial trouble who are the first members of 'staff' that they would try and offload?

I've absolutely no issue with Premiership clubs using the Furlough system, however I think they should be asking the high paid players to go on the scheme first and foremost (and not top their wages up), they are after all, unable to work.

I would have zero sympathy with a Premiership club who was in financial difficulty without first trying to get highly paid players to go on Furlough first.

They are ultimately football clubs. It is natural to trim non-football costs where possible. 

Football players are a valuable commodity. 

[Chrispmartha]

4 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I am well paid.

I have not requested that my manager cut my wages. I am impressed that so many on this forum apparently have requested this for themselves.

Until I do the same, I will not condemn anyone else for not doing so. Even then, I will obviously wait to know their full ciscumstances.

Where I agree with you is its not up for you or anyone else to ask to cut your/their wages, however what if they asked you?

 

I am not ‘condemning’ the footballers more the clubs.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I am well paid.

I have not requested that my manager cut my wages. I am impressed that so many on this forum apparently have requested this for themselves.

Until I do the same, I will not condemn anyone else for not doing so. Even then, I will obviously wait to know their full ciscumstances.

I wasn't going to go down that route, working for a bank already leaves me open, but I'm glad somebody has made this point. 

[Bob8]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

Where I agree with you is its not up for you or anyone else to ask to cut your/their wages, however what if they asked you?

I am not ‘condemning’ the footballers more the clubs.

Fair enough.

And, I would consider it. But, possibly jump ship for an employer who did not.

[Chrispmartha]

Just now, Dave T said:

They are ultimately football clubs. It is natural to trim non-football costs where possible. 

Football players are a valuable commodity. 

And footballers wages are their biggest outgoings, if the club is in financial trouble they should ask there highest earners if they would take a pay cut until they resume playing.

Like a lot of Rugby League clubs have!

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Derwent said:

Accounting profit and cash in the bank are two different things. If you haven’t got the latter you can’t pay anyone no matter how profitable you are on paper. 

Yep. I am supportive of companies using the furlough scheme if they deem they need to. 

[Chrispmartha]

1 minute ago, Bob8 said:

Fair enough.

And, I would consider it. But, possibly jump ship for an employer who did not.

Your contract may allow you to jump ship, a footballers contract may not

[Dave T]

Just now, Chrispmartha said:

And footballers wages are their biggest outgoings, if the club is in financial trouble they should ask there highest earners if they would take a pay cut until they resume playing.

Like a lot of Rugby League clubs have!

Different clubs and businesses will make their own decisions and take their own approach. I suspect many have come up with agreements in private as you would expect. 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Chrispmartha said:

Your contract may allow you to jump ship, a footballers contract may not

On this point, I tried to find details of where it leaves people in these circumstances i.e. do individuals have to accept being furloughed?